In your article "The British wrest defeat from the jaws of victory" you make two important points about the presence or absence of WMD in Iraq. One - the capability to produce WMD is as important if not more important than the fact of production of these armaments. Secondly, the majority of the governments of the Western nations have been privy to the same intelligence information related to WMD. It is useful to bear these points in mind as we listen to purported leaders speak.
In Canada, our Prime Minister gloats about there being no evidence of WMD, that rogue regime leaders must not be interfered with and that the will of the UN is to be respected. Parading like a peacock on the world stage he references his principled decision on war in Iraq. Who can forget? "A proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof it's proven." Regrettably many Canadians believe this hooey. Others have gone into therapy trying to figure what he meant. No one in the national media has countered with reference to Chrétien's own words, spoken in the House of Commons. Consider the following quotations:
"The goal that we all have is to make sure that Saddam Hussein respects the resolutions of the UN and stops the production of armaments like biological weapons and so on that are extremely dangerous. We have proof that they were producing it and are still producing them, and we want to terminate this production. It is extremely dangerous for countries around the world if we do not stop Saddam Hussein with this production."
"There comes a time when we must say to Saddam Hussein 'respect the obligation that you took in 1991 or else.' We are getting ready to do the 'or else.' When the time comes, we must be ready to do that."
"Saddam's determination to develop and use weapons of mass destruction, chemical warfare in particular, is well documented. Anyone doubting the serious character of the threat this man represents has only to recall how he turned these weapons against his own people. Equally well documented are his ongoing efforts to block the work of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission created to ensure compliance with Security Council Resolution 687."
"We believe that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment. Our allies, led by the United States, have asked that we support such a mission. They have asked for military support, not for combat troops. However, it would mean a Canadian presence in the action .... It would mean our armed forces would support, in a material way, the actions of this multilateral initiative. It would mean that when and if every other means fails and action is taken to enforce the will of the Security Council, Canada will be counted. Not on the sidelines, not in isolation. This is the decision we must make. I believe the choice is clear. I believe it is a choice dictated by the responsibilities of international citizenship, by the demands of international security and by an understanding of the history of the world in this century."
Source: Hansard, February 9, 1998 .The full text of Chrétien's remarks that day during question period and in the evening debate on the Middle East could be read to reveal the shallowness and hypocrisy of Canada's current position.
The age old question applies: "What did he know and when did he know it?" Is Canada going to help piece the puzzle together by providing the proof and documentation they possessed in 1998? If there was no proof then the PM mislead the Commons or was parroting poor intelligence information. If there was proof then the data and information needs to be revealed. Why is our Prime Minister leaving Blair and Bush to twist slowly in the wind? Why has the media not picked up on this documented about-face?
True, and I do detect a strong whiff of hypocricy here, but Clinton hasn't been President since 2000 and lots could have happened in two years. On the other hand, I find it almost impossible to believe that if Saddam had the weapons by no later than the end of Clinton's Presidency, he destroyed them sometime afterwards (at least until just before the war began). To the contrary, he acted like someone who was hiding something.
Chretien stood up in the House of Commons back then and fully endorsed attacking Iraq with the US, I remember it.
"On the other hand, I find it almost impossible to believe that if Saddam had the weapons by no later than the end of Clinton's Presidency, he destroyed them sometime afterwards (at least until just before the war began). To the contrary, he acted like someone who was hiding something."
Very true. Not to mention that when the UN inspectors left in 1998, they clearly stated that there were still at least 5% of these (Saddam reported) weapons not accounted for. Now 5% may not seem like alot...but as the UN and Scott Ritter even said, Saddam could easily reconstitute his WMDs in less than 6 weeks...especially if he retained any.
And this gets down to the crux of the situation: It's not so much the possession of WMDs...it's the intent and desire of the man in charge of those WMDs. Saddam's past record of aggression and willingness to use such weapons made "him" the threat. It is possible (but unlikely) that Saddam may not have had WMDs at that one moment. That, however, didn't mean he wouldn't have them in a year from now...and to ignore that is naive. While these WMDs are a threat, as long as Saddam was in charge, he was as much a threat.
This was linked from American RealPolitik, as is a great summation of the current hypocracy regarding Iraq's WMD.
From:
The Safety Valve
http://www.thesafetyvalve.com/archives/000721.html#000721 June 11, 2003
"Shut the hell up"
I have had it up to HERE with the whining over the "inadequate amount of evidence for WMDs" we've found so far in Iraq. First of all, the lefties have invented this "problem" with their imaginary claim that the WMDs were the ONLY reason we went into Iraq. This is bullshit, pure and simple, and I have invited many people here in SF to prove it with quotes and evidence. None have. It was simply the hook that the media chose to grab on to and run with, because it was easier than trying to explain the complex web of reasons taking out Saddam was a good idea. Fact: the nature of the UN resolutions meant we could go back into Iraq at any time for existing violations. The US was nice enough to try and work with the UN to get a separate "permission" to go in, but it was NOT necessary.
Second, the claim that because we haven't yet found vast quantities of WMDs does NOT "prove Bush was lying." If he was, then what about these people:
"[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."
-- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
-- Madeline Albright, 1998
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
-- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."
-- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
-- Bill Clinton in 1998
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"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."
-- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."
-- Tom Daschle in 1998
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."
-- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, 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."
-- Bob Graham, December 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."
-- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."
-- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
-- President Clinton, February 17, 1998
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ... we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton):
"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."
-- 105th Congress, 2nd Session, September 29, 1998
"Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein."
-- The New York Times
February 13, 2002
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
"In 1998, US President Bill Clinton expressed concerns about Iraq's failure to disarm, noting that he believed the country would give its weapons of mass destruction to other countries. Clinton also stated his belief that Saddam Hussein would eventually use these weapons - it was "only a matter of time." On September 29, 1998, The United States Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which states that the U.S. intends to remove Saddam Hussein from office and replace the government with a democratic institution. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed by President Clinton on October 31, 1998.
Clinton's plans to remove Hussein from power were put on hold when the U.N., under Kofi Annan, brokered a deal wherein Iraq would allow weapons inspectors back into the country. Iraq quit cooperating with the inspectors only days later and the inspectors left the country in December. (Inspectors would return the following year as part of The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). [link]
Not to mention that 15 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council found him to be in material breach of the WMD resolutions. Is that enough for you? Probably not...nothing would ever be enough, would it?
One hilarious argument I have read was that the quotes from the nineties don't matter since he could have destroyed his WMDs between that time and when the later quotes were made. And just why would he not have done this in front of the UN Weapons Inspectors and thereby had sanctions lifted, injecting $180 billion dollars into his economy?! Are you saying he destroyed them in secret and refused to mention it just to be a cement head? How ludicrous.
People, shut the hell up about the lack of WMDs. You are simply revealing that you are simplistic, America/Bush-hating fools who have no grasp of the situation at all and therefore no right to hold an opinion.
(triggered by this post(
http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2003_06_08.PHP#001026) on Right Wing News, and from whence I looted all the quotes. The hiatus is still officially on.)Posted on June 11, 2003 02:08 PM | TrackBack
Last night Savage went on about Hitlery's book, and so far, I think he's the only one I've heard saying that the book is to distract from the real damage that was done by the Clintons. So that people will think, yeah, the President that fooled around, instead of the President that damaged America in so many ways.
Wow! Chretien believed but wouldn't act. Is it because of his interest in the French-owned Total Fina Elf that was the largest oil producer in Iraq before the collapse of Iraq?
I believe that Fox is just the first in a trend. After simply not paying much attention for years, people are realizing what's going on. Cable and the Internet are having a profound effect on the status quo media-wise. I love it :)
