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

Skip to comments.

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People (Updated)
Right Wing News ^ | June 19, 2003 | John Hawkins

Posted on 06/19/2003 6:11:23 AM PDT by conservativecorner

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq yet, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is claiming that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The story being floated now is that Saddam had no WMD (or almost none) and that the Bush administration didn't tell the truth about the WMD threat.

Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same lies since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples of what I'm talking about...

"[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

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"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

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"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

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"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

"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 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

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: barbaramilulski; diannefeinstein; intelligence; iraq; joelieberman; johnkerry; tomdaschle; wmd; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: pickemuphere
Did we have US citizens on the inspection teams ever? Oh yeah, Scott Ridder. And he can't be trusted either, just don't know which story we can't trust.

The evidence was SEEN and documented, over and over.
61 posted on 06/19/2003 9:11:34 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
This is a good collection of quotes, very usefull. The bigger point here, though, is that while a GOP administration is taking one action, the Dems loudly squawk that it's not the right action against "the more dangerous enemy" as a way to discredit the current effort.

While fighting the Taliband: they whined What about Saddam? While fighting Saddam: what about N. Korea? or Iran? or Syria? Patience, democrats, we will get to all your boogeymen in their time. Just keep whining so we can assemble your quotes in articles just like this one.
62 posted on 06/19/2003 9:20:27 AM PDT by moodyskeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pickemuphere

63 posted on 06/19/2003 9:31:39 AM PDT by homeschool_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: moodyskeptic
Just keep whining so we can assemble your quotes in articles just like this one.

lol!

64 posted on 06/19/2003 9:39:53 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: pickemuphere
The President's political opponents are saying he lied to us to create the war. These quotes, from many different people, places and times, indicate that the whole world believed Saddam had WMD and was trying to acquire more of them. The whole world could be wrong. Perhaps Sadaam did destroy his WMD after the inspectors left (I have trouble swallowing that one myself). If true, that makes the President just as mistaken as everyone else, not a lier.

As for verifying the intel, it's hard to see how that could be done. If you read The Threatening Storm by Ken Pollack, you see a regime with multiple security organizations keeping each other in line. Penetrating that web would be nearly impossible. The CIA director thought the odds were 5%. Pollack, who analyzed Iraq for the CIA, thought that optimistic.

One last point. If Sadaam destroyed them on the eve of the war then the war served its purpose; it disarmed him.

65 posted on 06/19/2003 10:19:00 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Let me know where I'm wrong here, folks. If President Bush is so dishonest, why weren't WMD materials smuggled into Iraq to be "found" for the cameras? Seems to me that this will be the accusation anyway when they ARE found.
66 posted on 06/19/2003 10:57:47 AM PDT by lorrainer (FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
You miss the point. The main reason for the attack on Iraq was to create a "counterweight" to Saudi Arabia. Wolfowitz was honest enough to emphasize this before the war before he was slapped down. The claim that a two bit medieval dicator like Hussein was a national security threat is laughable and I don't think that even the administration took it too seriously.
67 posted on 06/19/2003 12:01:16 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Wolfowitz was honest enough to emphasize this before the war before he was slapped down. The claim that a two bit medieval dicator like Hussein was a national security threat is laughable and I don't think that even the administration took it too seriously.

Where do you get this from??
...the statement itself is laughable.

68 posted on 06/19/2003 1:03:09 PM PDT by evad (Lying..It's WHAT they do, it's ALL they do and they WON'T stop...EVER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56
As for verifying the intel, it's hard to see how that could be done. If you read The Threatening Storm by Ken Pollack, you see a regime with multiple security organizations keeping each other in line. Penetrating that web would be nearly impossible. The CIA director thought the odds were 5%. Pollack, who analyzed Iraq for the CIA, thought that optimistic

Exactly...there are too many who seem to think that intel is available by just dialing into a website and downloading it.

I really think they've been watching too many high tech videos ..or something.

Let's see, I need to know what Saddam is up to today. Hmmm, just hit ctrl x and viola, there it is.

69 posted on 06/19/2003 1:11:48 PM PDT by evad (Lying..It's WHAT they do, it's ALL they do and they WON'T stop...EVER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Kerry 2003: Bush Misled Americans On War; Kerry 1997: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities

In New Hampshire yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.

But 5 years ago, Sen. Kerry seemed to warn of Saddam's nuclear and biological capabilities as he argued the U.S. must do what it has to do, with or without other nations!

MORE

From the official congressional record: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities:

"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production:

'[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD

"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam:

"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do, With Or Without Other Nations:

"[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

END
70 posted on 06/19/2003 6:07:56 PM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evad
We agree it is laughable. You haven't been keeping up. This was the famous trial balloon flouted last year. I will find you the link and get you up to speed.
71 posted on 06/20/2003 6:06:07 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
ping to myself in case I need to wave this under someone's nose
72 posted on 06/20/2003 6:08:02 AM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
I will find you the link and get you up to speed.

Thank you.

I anxiously await a source that validates Wolfowitz saying that Hussein was NOT a national security threat.

I do recall a piece a while ago where he listed all the perils about the Iraq situation and stating that WMD was the one that people could most easily identify with.

73 posted on 06/20/2003 6:36:10 AM PDT by evad (Lying..It's WHAT they do, it's ALL they do and they WON'T stop...EVER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: evad
Hey.....I am doing your research but don't expect miracles. I can't promise a piece where Wolfowitz actually concedes that Hussein was not a national security threat. He isn't that dumb.
74 posted on 06/20/2003 6:38:37 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
I can't promise a piece where Wolfowitz actually concedes that Hussein was not a national security threat. He isn't that dumb.

hmm..ok. What did you mean by this statement?

Wolfowitz was honest enough to emphasize this before the war before he was slapped down. The claim that a two bit medieval dicator like Hussein was a national security threat is laughable and I don't think that even the administration took it too seriously

75 posted on 06/20/2003 6:56:08 AM PDT by evad (Lying..It's WHAT they do, it's ALL they do and they WON'T stop...EVER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
Well, say what you want, but I hold the administration to a higher standard than that.

It is specifically because of the amount of trust that I feel President Bush and his administration asked us to place in them that I agree with your thoughts on this.

76 posted on 06/20/2003 7:01:07 AM PDT by Frapster (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: evad
Wolfowitz floated a trial balloon on counterweight justication. He never openly denied a national security threat. No politician would throw away a potential card which could be played later with the public! He was testing the waters to see whether the counterweight explanation would play in Peoria. It didn't....so all the arguments shifted to the more "scary" but less obviously Machiviallian WMD stuff.

77 posted on 06/20/2003 7:14:40 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum
Let the truth go forth and multiply!
78 posted on 06/20/2003 8:57:15 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"Even if such a move hinders the investigations and causes some weapons to go undetected ?

Do you require your local police department to release its information regarding ongoing investigations ?"

How long do you feel is reasonable for them to have had time to produce any of the vast stockpiles believed to exist? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years?

How long would it take for you to begin to be more skeptical that they are going to find anything at all?

Given the amount of debriefing/interrogation going on, this stuff should be turning up. If there were a big find, I don't believe the administration would keep it completely under wraps. The political value (for Blair as well) of finding anything at all at this point is tremendous, and they would need to publicize some of it.
79 posted on 07/01/2003 9:56:44 AM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: evad
"Eventually you have to try to reason through the situation. Even if you don't trust W (and I certainly don't blame anyone for not trusting a politician) you have to reason whether Saddam was a real threat to us or not."

Add into this equation the value of having a pro-american government in Iraq, which means, once production is ramped over the next few years, a lot more oil on the market, and a huge player which (along with russia) really crimps the saudi influence in the politics of opec.
80 posted on 07/01/2003 9:58:30 AM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 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