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

The rest of the title is Even Bill Clinton Warned About Saddam's Nuclear Threat!
1 posted on 05/18/2015 5:40:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

Would you take the word of Secretary of State Madeline Albright? (Columbus Ohio Townhall meeting 1998, Berger and Cohen also)
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. On behalf of
my colleagues and myself, thank you very much for coming. During the
next hour and a half, we plan to discuss with you why the
confrontation between Iraq and the world matters to us as Americans;
how it developed; and what our strategy is for settling it in a way
that leaves us, our friends in the region and the entire world safer.

Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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. And it is a threat against which
we must, and will, stand firm.

In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike
any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against
his own people. In fact, he is a repeat offender, having used them
both in the battle and against his people.

When the Gulf War ended seven years ago, Iraq was required to destroy
such arms, and a special United Nations commission, called UNSCOM, was
created to verify that and to see that weapons would not be replaced.
Despite repeated Iraqi obstruction, UNSCOM has uncovered and destroyed
more of those deadly weapons than were demolished during the entire
Gulf War. But the evidence is strong that Iraq continues to hide
prohibited weapons and materials. There remains a critical gap between
the number of weapons we know Iraq produced and the amount we can
confirm were destroyed. There is only one way to learn the truth:
UNSCOM’s inspectors must have free, unfettered and unconditional
access to people, documents and facilities in Iraq. That is what we’re
demanding, and that demand has been echoed repeatedly by the UN
Security Council and by the world.

Unfortunately, Saddam continues to deny UNSCOM access to dozens of
suspect sites. He’s also trying to discredit UNSCOM, and to change its
character so that it will no longer be independent, and its
inspections no longer credible. As President Clinton made clear in his
strong speech yesterday at the Pentagon, the United States will not
allow this to happen. Iraq must permit UN inspectors to do their jobs,
as the Security Council has directed. If this does not occur, we must
be, and we are, prepared to use military force.

We support UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s plan to visit Baghdad
this weekend to gain Iraq’s full compliance with Security Council
resolutions. A peaceful solution remains our preferred option; but it
must be a true not a phony solution. Make no mistake, if we use
military force, it will be because Saddam Hussein has refused to
accept a peaceful solution. If we do not use force, it will be because
Iraq has finally agreed to give UN inspectors


2 posted on 05/18/2015 5:47:11 PM PDT by griswold3 (Just another unlicensed nonconformist in am dangerous Liberal world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

This is the sort of thing Limbaugh does best - just get out the facts, the tapes, the statements, that all the Dems and the media want to pretend never happened.


3 posted on 05/18/2015 5:47:17 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Bush Lied. Nothing more than an occupy/progressive chant. Nonsense.


4 posted on 05/18/2015 5:48:00 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Remember the Bush Bros. believe Saddam tried to assassinate their Dad so it was personal for them.


5 posted on 05/18/2015 5:50:57 PM PDT by Kenny500c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Bush did have the support of Congress, the people, the Western world, and also many ME countries. And one other matter is being overlooked. The UN - Bush was going to the UN for a resolution to go into Iraq. It seems like it was twelve years and many resolutions - usually blocked by Russia (Iraq was Russia’s client state and supplied their military material and advisors. Eventually the UN did provide the resolution to invade and the coalition, led by the US did. I may be a little off, but this is a old man’s recollection which I believe to be correct.


6 posted on 05/18/2015 6:07:30 PM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin; Kenny500c

I as ashamed of the number of Freepers (see Kenny500c above) who have bought the leftist party line about Bush

It tells me that there is some unfortunate born every minute who is ready to swallow what they are told over and over again


12 posted on 05/18/2015 6:13:14 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

No matter if was right or not, it’s Kryptonite now, because Bush never defended it, and with Jeb running is going to be on everybodys mind


13 posted on 05/18/2015 6:16:14 PM PDT by Sybeck1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

If Bush Lied, a Lot of Democrats Lied too.


16 posted on 05/18/2015 6:21:28 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Bush wasn’t even President in 1998 when Clinton started the war in Iraq.


17 posted on 05/18/2015 6:22:08 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

bookmark


22 posted on 05/18/2015 6:39:07 PM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Bush lied. They all lied. Y’all should’ve listened to me at the time.


23 posted on 05/18/2015 6:41:19 PM PDT by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

When a pubby gets this question, the correct reply is to Hillary Clinton- at this time, what differnce does it make?


25 posted on 05/18/2015 7:06:56 PM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

A lie is deliberately saying something is true when you know it isn’t.

Bush honestly believed it. That doesn’t make him a liar. At worst, that makes him wrong.

“Bush Lied” is just character assassination.


35 posted on 05/18/2015 9:59:22 PM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin




Related Sources


AND, Bill Clinton gave the Chinese permission to launch our satellites.
Don't you remember Loran ?

And Bill Clinton also gave China the computer technology to forecast high altitude weather, critical to launching missiles/rockets, and then China was finally able to get their second stage rockets to work. So you can personally thank William Jefferson Blythe Clinton for giving China, Pakistan, and North Korea, the ability to get a multi-stage rocket off the ground and the ability to control the satellite/NUCLEAR WARHEAD once launched.
Also along with that was the ability to CONTROL OUR satellites.
36 posted on 05/18/2015 10:06:58 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Hey Freepers, spread these quotes around..

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
—President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
—President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 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.”
—Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
—Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e 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.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 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.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. 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.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...”
— Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“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, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda 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.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“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.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


40 posted on 05/19/2015 11:07:26 AM PDT by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

I heard this and agree we should not pander over Iraq

Except all NeoCons are not Jewish

But a lot of the originals were

Strong on Israel and nation building

Weak on culture war

Not unexpected really

But Rush took the leftist tactic

Smear rather than refute

You’re better than that Rush


41 posted on 05/19/2015 11:13:10 AM PDT by wardaddy (Dems hate western civilization and GOP are cowards...We are headed to a dark place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Is Limbaugh supporting Jeb Bush’s candidacy?


44 posted on 05/20/2015 8:07:19 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Presidents, and that includes Bush, purposely only internalize the facts that support their position. You could put them through a lie detector test and they would pass if asked direct questions. With that said, we were manipulated into going to battle for purposes different than stated which is, stabilizing the region and defeating our enemies. The reason I say this is that the only way to defeat your enemy is to totally crush him. This leads to a rebuilding on principles of law and order to stabilize a country around a Constitution and the will of the people to live freely.

The vast majority of people in the world and especially in the ME want a strong man dictator. Even in America, a slim majority want a strong man in charge.

We should have never interfered other than to destroy and send the message that we can do so at will if messed with.

As America has show over the centuries, we kill a “bad guy” then install our own “good guy” who is only different from the previous ruler in that he initially conforms to our wishes. We call this “bringing freedom” to the “oppressed”. When the new guy T’s us off, we install another “good/bad guy”...infinity... Not since WW II have we had success with this strategy and only then because we had the only working nuclear weapons, the most powerful military, and an intact industrial powerhouse to impose our will on countries that already had been ordered societies for centuries. None of the above facts apply to Afghanistan, Crapistan, Iraq or Libya. They simply do not wish to base their lives around Liberty.


46 posted on 05/23/2015 10:51:52 AM PDT by Glad2bnuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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