Posted on 11/12/2005 9:10:44 AM PST by doug from upland
He is truly a sociopath.
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties.
December 29, 2003. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ
January 12, 2004. The New York Times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056113/posts
Britain insists that AQ was in Iraq pre war.
June 17, 2004. MiddleEast Online.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155369/posts
How the Networks Pretend to Ignore their own Reporting in the 90's that AQ and Iraq worked together.
June 17, 2004. Media Research Center
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040617.asp
The Clinton Administration first linked Saddam and OBL.
June 25, 2004. The Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
Long List of Clinton Administration Officials who Believed There was an AQ/Iraq connection.
July 12, 2004. NewsMax.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169397/posts
Gore, Cohen, Clinton linked AQ and Saddam.
July 15, 2004. The Daily Texan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1165515/posts
Clinton feared Iraq gave AQ chemical weapons in Sudan under a cooperative agreement they had.
July 2004. 9/11 Commission
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373948467
Excellent reference material on Clinton/Iraq/WMD:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1513669/posts?page=1
Who is lying about Iraq.
November 2005. John Podhoritz
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html
Thanks Doug. Outstanding!
"We are now dealing with a threat, I think, that is probably harder for some to understand because it is a threat of the future, rather than a present threat, or a present act such as a border crossing, a border aggression. And here, as the president described in his statement yesterday, we are concerned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's ability to have, develop, deploy weapons of mass destruction and the threat that that poses to the neighbors, to the stability of the Middle East, and therefore, ultimately to ourselves.
On November 16, Cohen made a widely reported appearance on ABC's This Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C. Cohen explained how fast a person could die once exposed to anthrax. "One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax would produce death within five days." And he noted that Iraq "has had enormous amounts" of anthrax. Cohen also spoke on the extreme lethality of VX nerve agent: "One drop [of VX] from this particular thimble as such -- one single drop will kill you within a few minutes." And he reminded the world that Saddam may have enough VX to kill "millions, millions, if it were properly dispersed and through aerosol mechanisms."
Cohen began his press briefing on the Pentagon report by showing a picture of a Kurdish mother and her child who had been gassed by Saddam's army. A bit later, standing besides the gruesome image, he described death on a mass scale. "One drop [of VX nerve agent] on your finger will produce death in a matter of just a few moments. Now the UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth." He then sketched an image of a massive chemical attack on an American city. Recalling Saddam's use of poison gas and the sarin attack in Tokyo, Cohen warned that "we face a clear and present danger today" and reminded people that the "terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in New York had in mind the destruction and deaths of some 250,000 people that they were determined to kill."
TIME wrote that "officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call 'strategic crime.' By that they mean the merging of the output from a government's arsenals, like Saddam's biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them."
Great post! The difference between the Clintonistas and President George W. Bush is that Bush acted on the information (that Iraq was a threat) and chose to defend freedom. President Bush will be recognized as a great president for liberating 50 million people in the Middle East and protecting America. Clinton was too busy disgracing the office. If it were up to the Democrats, the USSR would still exist, and Saddam Hussein would still be torturing people and commiting mass murder. Even in the late 1930's, the so-called "liberal intellectual" crowd opposed going to war against Hitler. They were isolationists with blinders on, brains shut off, and no sense of human decency, just as they are now.
HA! Obviously faulty and manipulated intelligence. Can't fool me!
"I say this not to frighten you"
In Sacramento, November 15, Clinton painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against "organized forces of destruction," telling the audience that only a small amount of "nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did." Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons "fall into the wrong hands" is "fundamentally what is stake in the stand off we're having in Iraq today."
FROM CLINTON --
"Now, let's imagine the future. 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. . . .
Asked whether Iraq had moved "any of his programs underground into these hardened facilities," Cohen responded that he didn't know whether Saddam had "moved these chemicals or biological agents and materials --- not only the agents themselves, but documentation .... So we don't know whether they've moved them into hardened shelters or underground bunkers." He spoke of Iraqi weapons as fact, not a probability or likelihood.
Excellent post! Shame the mass media will never talk about CLINTON'S case for war with Iraq.
What kills me is that the liberals have very successfully focused all the attention on nuclear weapons and the "fact" that Saddam didn't have any. They have convinced the American people that WMD = nukes. We didn't find a shitload of nuclear-tipped missiles sitting around Iraq, therefore Bush Lied. Nobody is talking anymore about the bioweapons and the chemical weapons, which WERE found in abundance after the invasion and which could have killed many more people than a couple of nukes. Nobody is talking about how the Coalition forces were expecting to have chemical weapons used against them. Nobody is talking about the possibility that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks, which have never been solved.
However, for every one of us who reminds people that there was a six year worldwide consensus that Saddam was hiding WMD, the media puts on every single one of their favorite fifth columnists to chant that Bush lied about WMD, Rove is evil and should be frog marched and Libby was guilty of leaking classified information in an attempt to destroy the heroic Joe Wilson and his super-duper secret CIA coctail party agent wife. They shout us down at every turn. It can get depressing sometimes.
I feel the same way. It's frustrating to hear this nonsense spewed from every TV, magazine, newspaper, and radio news report every single day.
The only thing that makes me feel better is imagining how depressed democrats must be -- the propaganda machine isn't working as well as it used to. Many of us are shouting back.
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Al Gore criticized the first Bush administration for a "blatant disregard" of Iraq's ties to terrorism. On September 29, 1992 Al Gore said, "The Reagan/Bush Administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorist who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came from Baghdad with suitcase bombs." Gore went on to say, "There might have been a moment's pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May 1987, killing 37 sailors -- but the Administration smoothed it over very fast."
http://www.mit.edu/afs/net/user/tytso/usenet/nptn/campaign92/dems/15
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.