Posted on 10/14/2014 8:07:35 PM PDT by ironman
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified. The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.
The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The story is, of course, furiously spinning. The author is careful to give the impression to the casual reader that these were all old munitions but in the body of the story it is clear that they were not, and that precursors and ingredients had been purchased by Saddam right up to the invasion. Pretty much as we said then and ever since.
There is, in this, no sense on the part of the Times that they have been merrily pretending otherwise, or criticism of anyone who parroted the party line that there was never anything there or if there was, it was our fault. The cold facts are that if things are as the author describes the munitions were dangerous then and they are dangerous now, and that Saddam's main facility falling into the hands of ISIS wasn't the non-event it was portrayed as.
This is BS and NYT’s CYA. There was nothing secretive about chemical attacks while we were there. They were in the daily SIGACTS and BUAs. I read of several directly. The media CHOSE not to report them. They did not fit their meme of an unjustified war.
The NYT lied. Kurds died.
Those rockets were not filled with agents. They were empty.
Gruesome photos may show ISIS using chemical weapons on Kurds, report says
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3214671/posts
It would be ironic if Obama puts boots on the ground to get rid of this very “old” stuff that Bush's Pentagon kept secret. But if you do a very shallow search you can find all of this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/17/sarin-mustard-gas-discovered-separately-in-iraq/
http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/iraq-sarin-stockpiles-found/story-e6frfkui-1111112124958
Now the NYT has to spin this:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1309825/isis-in-iraq-find-saddam-husseins-wmd-stockpiles-of-chemical-weapons-george-w-bush-was-right/
The signs were there, after all. For some years now I have waited in vain for someone in the MSM to explain why Saddam was keeping "pesticides" in the middle of an ammunition dump. It wasn't secret, but the brutal truth is that if it wasn't useful in smearing Bush it wasn't worth reporting, and that it remains that way.
President Lincoln said that, right?
You realize that cover stories are built like onion skins. Peel back a layer and there is another layer. They were not "long abandoned". And "close collaboration with the West" just refers to the purchase of basic chemicals. Spin, in other words to avoid the reality.
Thank God for embedded reporters or we would know nothing. Some people here remember this, but I periodically remind people of it because this has mostly gone down the memory hole.
During the invasion, American troops found a chemical plant that produced "nerve agent". The plant manager was an Iraqi Army general. The plant was secured by Iraqi infantry. It produced nerve agent. The cameras recorded the event and it was played on national TV.
Then after a couple of days, they reported back that, no, come to find out, it wasn't nerve agent. It was agricultural pesticide.
Some time later they captured an Iraqi Army ammo dump and discovered barrels of nerve agent. Then after a few days it was reported that, come to find out, it wasn't nerve agent at all. It was agricultural pesticide. This happened several more times; at one event the reporters covering it were made ill from exposure to nerve agent only to be told later, nope, agricultural pesticide.
At a military ammo dump.
I asked myself then, who has that power, to make WMD disappear just by re-naming it? Because spread it on Iranian troops, yes, its nerve agent. Dilute it and spread it on your fields, its agricultural pesticide. If its being made by the military, and stored in military munitions stores, its for military use. But at a time when Bush's presidency hung by a thread on that very issue, they made it disappear.
And to this day almost everyone has forgotten. They found WMD. They made it go away by renaming it. Its as if it never happened.
During the invasion, we captured a lot of documents containing messages between Saddam and his officers. The Defense Department put them online in an effort to crowd source the translation, and a couple of Freepers got involved in translating them. Saddam was talking as if he had WMD’s right up until he fled the Palace. If we were intercepting any of those communications in real time, it’s easy to see how intelligence personnel would have believed his claims of having shut down his WMD programs was false.
The also repeated the lie that WMD was the only reason we invaded.
When we fight IS —and we will be forced to do so—They will use Poison Gas on us. Lots of blind GIs and ones with lungs burned out—Like WW I. Terrible stuff—but with a weak president all we must do is lump it—its not like we could reply with gas or something.
Now the NY Times is going to have some esplaning to do Lucy. Was this a secret by the Pentagon from the American people? Did this story just get out for the public to know because some really bad actors are now in passion of chemicals and we are not going to fight them because they have these or are we going to fight them because of the chemical weapons that did not start the Bush lied people died, in Iraq war.. If you head is not spinning then you haven’t listened to the CDC talk about Ebola and complaining about budgets when they got 500 million more in 2014. Or the story of how a video was the cause of an attack on Sept 11 at the compound in Bengazi. We have a tale in the NY TIMES about officer told not to tell the public about sick soldiers, but the stories of Iraq - gulf war disease explained by research at UTSW was not correct - now it is correct.
I hope you will repost this at lunch so it stays near the top of the breaking news. This darn thing makes me sick. Here in Dallas, a big time researcher had several vets in a study about gulf disease - he said it was from chemical weapons, but the VA said now way Jose. Someone pass out the pitch forks!!!!
Many of can well remember when the nespapers and other media assured us there were no chemical agents in Iraq, and President Bush was wrong.
The media have all very conveniently forgotten that now, of course.
Quotes and Facts on Iraq
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
excerpt:
“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. 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, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.”
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
==
flashbacks:
Quotes and Facts on Iraq
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
excerpt:
“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more 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, 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, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
==
flashbacks:
Quotes and Facts on Iraq
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
excerpt:
“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live”
July 22, 2003
==
Quotes and Facts on Iraq
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
excerpt:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Were we right to go to this war alone [sic], basically without the Europeans behind us [sic]? Was that something we had to do?
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (Democrat, North Carolina): I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.
MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?
EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.
MATTHEWS: You believe in that?
EDWARDS: Yes.
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball”
October 13, 2003
okay, there’s much more, but i’l stop there (you must view Harry Reid’s video though).. ;)
==
RFW @ 9:23 PM..
my apologies, should have said the one about 20 down with Harry Reid’s mug on it (it’s one that has been posted many a time, but well worth viewing time & again).. he’s in there though, he also said the following..
“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
Remember this speech from the Oval Office?
December 16, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The Oval Office - 6:00 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. 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 programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and, indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq, why we have acted now and what we aim to accomplish. (there is more)
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/981216-wh2.htm
EB,
I’m not sure if this is what you are thinking about but Joe Biden gave a speech on January 28, 2003 and said, “The President should state clearly tonight, we are not acting on a doctrine of preemption, if we act. We are acting on enforcement of a U.N. resolution that is the equivalent of a peace treaty which is being violated by the signatory of that treaty, and wehave a right to do that and it is the world’s problem.”
link to Biden speech transcript
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030130-usia04.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.
“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more 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, 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, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
Let’s go back to February 17th, 1998. He was president, and this is from his address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon staff. He said, “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. We have to defend our future from these predators of the twenty-first century. They’ll be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.
Bill Clinton, New York Daily News, April 16th, 2003. “’Saddam is gone, and good riddance,’ former President Clinton said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren’t found. Said the president, ‘I don’t think you can criticize the president for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. That is what I was always told.’”
May 18th, 2003, at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Mississippi, during commencement address. “I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” My question is, Harry Smith, what the hell are you doing? You can’t find these things? All you could find is something Clinton said about inspectors? We’re doing the job the mainstream media should be doing.
TIME Magazine, Bill Clinton, June 28th, 2004. “So you’re sitting there as president, you’re reeling in the aftermath of 9/11, so, yeah, you want to go get Bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that, but you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I gotta do that. That’s why I supported the Iraq thing.”
“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
“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
“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.
REASONS FOR THE U.S. STRIKES
— President Clinton, White House statement, August 20: “Today I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security....Our target was terror. Our mission was clear: to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Usama bin Ladin, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today....Bin Ladin publicly vowed to wage a terrorist war against America, saying — and I quote — ‘We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They’re all targets.’
— President Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, August 22:
“The information now in our possession is convincing. Behind these attacks were the same hands that killed American and Pakistani peacekeepers in Somalia, the same hands that targeted U.S. airlines, and the same hands that plotted the assassinations of the Pope and President Mubarak of Egypt. I’m referring to the bin Ladin network of radical groups — probably the most dangerous, non-state terrorist actor in the world today. We also had compelling evidence that the bin Ladin network was poised to strike at us again, and soon....With that information and evidence, we simply could not stand idly by. That is why I ordered our military strikes last Thursday (August 20). Our goals were to disrupt bin Ladin’s terrorist network and destroy elements of its infrastructure in Afghanistan and Sudan. And our goal was to destroy in Sudan the factory with which bin Ladin’s network is associated, which was producing an ingredient essential for nerve gas.”
— President Clinton, letter to the leaders of Congress, August 20:
“These strikes were a necessary and proportionate response to the imminent threat of further terrorist attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities. These strikes were intended to prevent and deter additional attacks by a clearly identified terrorist threat. The targets were selected because they served to facilitate directly the efforts of terrorists specifically identified with attacks on U.S. personnel and facilities and posed a continuing threat to U.S. lives.”
— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” August 20: “...when the United States is attacked, when our people are taken out, we will stand out unilaterally in self-defense and really let the world know what we believe in.”
— Defense Secretary William Cohen, remarks at Pentagon briefing, August 20: “In the wake of the tragic and treacherous attacks on our embassies in East Africa and in light of the continuing patterns of specific threats against U.S. citizens and facilities, we’ve taken these actions to reduce the ability of these terrorist organizations to train and equip their misguided followers or to acquire weapons of mass destruction for their use in campaigns of terror....We had information that led us to believe that Usama bin Ladin and his organization were indeed trying to acquire chemical weapons and to utilize them in future activities.”
— Defense Secretary William Cohen, briefing for key members of Congress, August 21: “We did not target, specifically, individuals; we targeted training facilities. This is a training camp that is known as Terrorist University. We are determined to take down those facilities and disrupt them to the extent that we can to help minimize the ability of these individuals to wreak their terror upon innocent people. So striking the facilities in themselves is a worthy goal.”
— National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, White House briefing, August 20: “We have convincing information from a variety of reliable intelligence sources and methods that Usama bin Ladin, with the help of his terrorist allies, is responsible for the devastating bombings on August 7 of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Rarely do numerous sources converge so uniformly and persuasively as they did in the course of our investigation into the responsibility for these terrorist acts. Based on this information, we have high confidence that these bombings were planned, financed and carried out by the organization bin Ladin leads.”
— National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, White House briefing, August 21: “...I am absolutely certain that had we not done this (military strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan) we would have been the victim of other terrorist attacks in the not too distant future.”
— Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Henry Shelton, interview on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation” program, August 23:
“After the attack on the (U.S.) embassies on the seventh of August, we started getting very convincing information from a variety of reliable sources that started quickly pointing toward the Usama bin Ladin network of terrorist groups as being responsible for the attack on the two embassies (in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam). Right after that we also got information that bin Ladin might be planning a gathering of terrorists in his training camp....The combination of those two things...immediately started us looking at military options that might be available to go after the bin Ladin network on the 20th of August. That information continued to pour in, and in a matter of days it became evident that bin Ladin’s organization was responsible for it. And that’s what drove the attack on the network.”
— U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, letter to UN General Assembly President Danilo Turk, August 20:
“In accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter...the United States has exercised its right of self-defense in responding to a series of armed attacks against U.S. Embassies and U.S. nationals. My government has obtained convincing information from a variety of reliable sources that the organization of Usama bin Ladin is responsible for the devastating bombings on August 7 of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania....The bin Ladin organization maintains an extensive network of camps, arsenals, and training and supply facilities in Afghanistan, and support facilities in Sudan, which have been and are being used to mount terrorist attacks against American targets. These facilities include an installation at which chemical weapons have been produced.”
— Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, U.S. Information Agency (USIA) Foreign Press Center briefing, August 25: “The main purpose of the strikes was not retaliation; it was to prevent further terrorist attacks against American targets which we had reason to believe would take place....In this case, as the United States made clear, it not only had convincing evidence of the linkage to the recent bombings, but it had convincing evidence that there were to be other attacks planned by this organization and its brother and sister organizations around the world to take action against the United States. Those are the circumstances. They speak for themselves.”
WHAT THE U.S. STRIKES ACCOMPLISHED
— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on ABC-TV’s “This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts,” August 23:
“We think that what we managed to do was to have some significant impact on the terrorist planning activities in what is a major terrorist camp....The point here was to do something that would disrupt Usama bin Ladin and his organization’s ability to conduct additional terrorist activities....We’ll have to wait to see whom we got on this. But we did have very good intelligence about the fact that there was going to be a meeting there with the various people that belong to Usama bin Ladin’s umbrella organization of terrorists. But the point here was to get at a lot of their command and control and their structure in this camp that has been there for some time. We had very good evidence that this was a very good time to go after the structure. And I think that those raids have been successful.”
— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on CBS-TV Nightly News program, August 21:
“...we do know, as far as the pharmaceutical firm in Sudan is concerned, that is now non-operational, as far as we’ve been told. That was a very significant hit.”
— National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, interview on CNN’s Late Edition news program, August 23:
“All six of these camps (in Afghanistan) — these were training camps for terrorists; they’ve trained thousands of terrorists over the past several years in these camps — were heavily to moderately damaged. There are six camps; severe damage was done, serious damage was done to all six. The camps themselves have been, I think, rendered ineffective. Anybody who was there obviously suffered some damage. And I think in addition we have made it very clear that those who attack or target the United States cannot do so with impunity.”
— Defense Secretary William Cohen, remarks at Pentagon news briefing, August 20: “Our plan was to attack these sites (in Afghanistan) with sufficient power to certainly disrupt them, and, hopefully, destroy them....We believe given the targeting that was done, with the capability that was unleashed, it would cause sufficient damage to disrupt them for some time.”
— U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, interview on the “Fox News Sunday” television program, August 23:
“But most importantly, what we did was send a very strong signal that no nation should provide sanctuary or harbor terrorists. This was primarily the objective, besides protecting Americans and making sure that bin Ladin and his forces did not attack us again, as we had evidence he would.”
TIMING OF THE U.S. STRIKES
— President Clinton, White House statement, August 20:
“With compelling evidence that the bid Ladin network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving people, I decided America must act....We have reason to believe that a gathering of key terrorist leaders was to take place there today, thus underscoring the urgency of our actions.”
— Defense Secretary William Cohen, interview on NBC-TV’s “Meet the Press,” August 23:
“...we had information that there may be a gathering of terrorists at that location in Afghanistan on that particular date, and that certainly was a factor in our planning....We saw an increased level of activity each day leading up to Thursday (August 20), and that again was convincing evidence to us that the information was accurate....We did not know if he (Usama bin Ladin) would be there or not. He was not our target as such. We were targeting his infrastructure and his network, and we believe that that was a mission accomplished.”
— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on ABC-TV’s “This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts,” August 23:
“The point here was to get at a lot of their command and control and their structure in this camp that has been there for some time. We had very good evidence that this was a very good time to go after the structure. I think that those raids have been successful.”
— Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk, remarks at a briefing for the Middle East press at the Department of State, August 21:
“What we know is that Usama bin Ladin brought together a group of disparate terrorists and organizations for a kind of meeting that had taken place that led to this announcement of this World Islamic Front that appears to have been established back in February. And, as you may have heard, the National Security Adviser said they had information that this group was meeting again yesterday (near) Khost in Afghanistan, which was a reason for the timing of the attack.”
POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER U.S. STRIKES
— President Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, August 22:
“Our efforts against terrorism cannot and will not end with this strike. We should have realistic expectations about what a single action can achieve. And we must be prepared for a long battle. But it’s high time that those who traffic in terror learn they, too, are vulnerable.”
— Secretary of Defense William Cohen, remarks at press stakeout, U.S. Capitol, August 21:
“...(More U.S. attacks are) always a possibility. We have contingency plans that we are developing, and there may be more in the future.”
— Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, USIA Foreign Press Center briefing, August 25:
“We are engaged in a long-term struggle with terrorism. There are times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough....We do not expect that these various initiatives will in themselves end the terrorist threat, but they are important because they clearly show that we are in this for the long haul. We will act unilaterally when we must in order to protect our citizens against imminent threats, but we invite other nations of the world to stand with us in this struggle because all nations are vulnerable to the threat of terrorism, and all citizens of other countries are equally vulnerable, as the history of this particular event makes crystal clear.”
— Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk, remarks at a briefing for the Middle East press at the Department of State, August 21: “We fully expect that this will be an ongoing effort to counter the terrorists. We started fighting them yesterday, and we certainly are not going to end our fight against them today....As far as whether we’re going to keep on conducting attacks, that will depend on the circumstances. In some cases, as in the case of Libya, we seek to bring terrorist perpetrators to justice through United Nations resolutions in an effort to get Qadhafi to give up two terrorist suspects for trial in an American or Scottish court.”
— Ambassador Robert Pelletreau, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, during a USIA Worldnet “Global Exchange” program, August 24: “The other aspect is going to be a much more assertive attitude toward terrorist organizations, wherever they are in the world....They are going to have to realize that there is no place that they can have shelter or asylum or can hide....This is not going to be a short-term process....I think this is one of the big issues of the 21st century that we are going to have to face. And Americans are often quite impatient, and they lose focus on a given issue — they get distracted sometimes. But in this case this has got to be a question of a campaign and an effort that is going to go on, frankly, over many years.”
EVIDENCE OF PRECURSOR CHEMICAL PRODUCTION AT KHARTOUM FACILITY
— Defense Secretary William Cohen, remarks at a Pentagon briefing, August 20:
“What we do know is the facility that was targeted in Khartoum produced the precursor chemicals that would allow the production of a type of VX nerve agent....We do know that he (Usama bin Ladin)...had had an interest in acquiring chemical weapons...that this facility produces the precursors that can result in the production of VX. That was a sufficient connection for us.”
— Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Henry Shelton, remarks at a Pentagon news briefing, August 20:
“The intelligence community is confident that this facility is involved in the production of chemical weapons agents, including precursor chemicals for deadly V series of nerve agents like, for example, VX.”
— National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, remarks at a White House briefing, August 20:
“The so-called pharmaceutical plant is part of something in Sudan called the Military Industrial Complex....We know that bin Ladin has been a substantial contributor to that enterprise. We know that bin Ladin and his people have sought to obtain chemical weapons. We know that he has had a particularly close relationship with the government of Sudan. And, therefore, when you put those things together...there clearly is...no question that it was making this chemical that has a name too long for me to pronounce (O- ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid). He (bin Ladin) was an early financial contributor to the Sudanese overall military enterprise, of which this is a part.”
— National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, interview on CNN’s Late Edition news program, August 23:
“There’s no question in our mind that that facility (in Sudan), that factory, was used to produce a chemical that is used in the manufacture of VX nerve gas and has no other commercial distribution as far as we understand. We have physical evidence of that fact....I can say that I have no question. The intelligence community has no question that that factory was used to manufacture a chemical used in making nerve gas.”
— U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, interview on the “Fox News Sunday” television program, August 23:
“We have credible, physical evidence that this was a chemical precursor plant (in Sudan). There are some intelligence sources here that are very sensitive. We will not compromise those, but we are ready to debate this issue with anybody.”
-
- Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, USIA Foreign Press Center briefing, August 25:
“The physical evidence is a soil sample. Analysis of it shows the presence of a chemical whose simple name is EMPTA, a known precursor for the nerve agent VX, and an indicator of a potential to produce VX gas. The substance is not used in commercial applications. It doesn’t occur naturally in the environment, and it is not a by-product of another chemical process.”
— Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk, remarks at a briefing for the Middle East press at the Department of State, August 21:
“The chemical factory in northeastern Khartoum was selected because of clear evidence we have of its involvement in the production of chemical weapons — physical evidence. The factory was producing a precursor for VX nerve gas....If you think for a moment about the consequences of Usama bin Ladin and his associates getting a hold of chemical weapons, I think you will understand the importance of targeting this factory, as well as the terrorist training bases in Afghanistan.”
— State Department Deputy Spokesman James Foley, State Department briefing, August 24:
“That facility may very well have been producing legitimate pharmaceuticals. That in no way contradicts our assertion that that facility was also producing precursor CW — chemical weapons — precursor elements. It is true that the facility was once approved by the Iraq sanctions committee as a source of pharmaceuticals provided to Iraq under the oil-for-food program. But again, that approval, which occurred in January of this year, in no way alters the fact that the facility was also producing those precursor elements.”
LEGAL BASIS FOR THE U.S. STRIKES
— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on ABC-TV’s “This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts,” August 23:
“We believe that we have a legal right to self-defense and that is what we have stated. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, we have a right to self-defense. As the United States of America, we have the right to self-defense when our people have been killed and when others have been maimed. And we see this as a long-term struggle with terrorism.”
— U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, letter to the President of the UN Security Council, August 20:
“In (carrying out these attacks), the United States has acted pursuant to the right of self-defense confirmed by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The targets struck, and the timing and method of attack used, were carefully designed to minimize risks of collateral damage to civilians and to comply with international law, including the rules of necessity and proportionality.”
— U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, interview on “Fox News Sunday,” August 23: “Under Article 51 of the United Nations (Charter), we have the right of self-defense to take this action because our interests were being threatened and compromised.”
— Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk, State Department press briefing, August 21:
“In bombing the terrorist camps in Afghanistan and the chemical weapons factory in Sudan, the United States was exerting its right of self-defense under article 51 of the United Nations Charter. We not only had conclusive evidence of Usama bin Ladin’s associates’ responsibility for the bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, but we also had strong information from many sources of his intentions to attack more U.S. Embassies and interests around the world.”
LONG-TERM NATURE OF THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM
— President Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, August 22:
“Our efforts against terrorism cannot and will not end with this strike. We should have realistic expectations about what a single action can achieve. And we must be prepared for a long battle. But it’s high time that those who traffic in terror learn they, too, are vulnerable....As we close ranks against international threats, we must remember this: America will never give up the openness, the freedom and the tolerance that define us. For the ultimate target of these terrorist attacks is our ideals, and they must be defended at any cost.”
— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview at U.S. Capitol, August 21:
“I think what we really have to understand now is that the terrorist threat is a longer-term one and it’s a global one. We will maintain, along with other civilized countries in the world, a sustained effort to deal with what is an increasing terrorist threat....This is, unfortunately, the war of the future. We’re all dedicated to making sure that Americans, whether they are at home or abroad, as well as other innocent people in other countries, do not have to live their lives under the threat of those who believe that taking down innocent people is some form of political expression.”
— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on ABC-TV’s “This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts,” August 23:
“We see this as a long-term struggle with terrorism. I think unfortunately...this is something that we’re going to be dealing with at the end of the century and into the next one. We need to have a lot of cooperation from others. But as we made very clear this week, we will take unilateral action when we think that our national interest has been threatened.”
— Defense Secretary William Cohen, interview on NBC TV’s “Meet the Press” program, August 23:
“...the American people...can be sure that if we are attacked, they certainly are going to see a response....this is not a one-time event, as President Clinton and Secretary Albright have indicated. This is a long-term engagement. We intend to take down that terror network to do what we can to ensure that the American people and our friends are safe from the threat of terrorism.”
— National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, interview on CNN’s Late Edition news program, August 23:
“We have been after bin Ladin and his network for a number of years, in a number of ways. Some of his associates, Ramzi Yousef, for example, who was affiliated with the World Trade Center (bombing), we finally arrested; brought back to justice; (he) was convicted....I think that it is important to see this as a long term effort, a long term struggle. We have knowledge, we know that these groups essentially have declared war on the United States. It is going to take a sustained, determined, systematic effort for us to go after these groups, and we intend to do that.
DISRUPTING BIN LADIN’S FINANCIAL NETWORK
— President Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, August 22:
“I’m determined to use all the tools at our disposal. That is why I have just signed an executive order directing the Treasury to block all financial transactions between the bin Ladin terrorist group and American persons and companies. We’ll urge other governments to do the same. We must not allow sanctuary for terrorism — not for terrorists or for their money. It takes money — lots of it — to build the network bin Ladin has. We’ll do our best to see that he has less of it.”
— Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, briefing at the Washington Foreign Press Center, August 25:
“We intended to pursue our anti-terror policy using all the tools and all of the resources at our command. On the same day as our military strikes, the president signed an executive order directing the Treasury Department to block all financial transactions between Usama bin Ladin’s terrorist network and American persons and companies, and he urged other governments to do the same. And yesterday, Secretary Albright announced a new United States-United Kingdom plan to go forward with a trial in the Netherlands, before Scottish judges and applying Scottish law, of the two Libyans suspected of bombing Pam Am Flight 103 nearly 10 years ago.”
— U.S. Ambassador Robert Pelletreau, former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, interview on USIA Worldnet Global Exchange, August 24:
“If you have, as you understand Mr. bin Laden has, investments in a number of countries, and the ability to mobilize large financial resources in support of some terrorist action, that is one of the areas that we have to go after. And we have to start doing it at home. We have to start by making sure that our own laws and our own framework will do the maximum possible to prevent this from happening in our country, and him making use of facilities available in our country. Then we have to go out and expand this cooperation internationally...and I believe that we will see this happening over the months ahead.”
U.S. RECORD OF BRINGING TERRORISTS TO JUSTICE
— President Clinton, White House statement, August 20:
“America has battled terrorism for many years. Where possible, we’ve used law enforcement and diplomatic tools to wage the fight. The long arm of American law has reached out around the world and brought to trial those guilty of attacks in New York, in Virginia, and in the Pacific. We have quietly disrupted terrorist groups and foiled their plots. We have isolated countries that practice terrorism. We’ve worked to build an international coalition against terror. But there have been and will be times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough, when our very national security is challenged, and when we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens.”
— President Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, August 8:
“In recent years we have captured major terrorists in the far corners of the world and brought them to America to answer for their crimes — sometimes years after they were committed. They include the man who murdered two CIA employees outside its headquarters. Four years later we apprehended him halfway around the world, and a Virginia jury sentenced him to death. The mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing who fled far from America — two years later, we brought him back for trial in New York. And the terrorist responsible for bombing a Pan Am jet bound for Hawaii from Japan in 1982, we pursued him for 16 years. This June we caught him....Some serious acts of terror remain unresolved, including the attack on our military personnel at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; and now, these horrible bombings in Africa. No matter how long it takes or where it takes us, we will pursue terrorists until the cases are solved and justice is done.”
— National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, White House press briefing, August 20:
“We have strengthened a number of our laws with respect to terrorist organizations. We have intensified our intelligence capability, our counterterrorism capabilities in other areas. In the last five years we have apprehended about 40 terrorists that were around the world and brought them to justice — some after periods as long as 12 years. So we will continue that effort and continue to carry on this battle against the scourge of terrorism.”
— Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, State Department press briefing, August 21:
“We have fought this threat for many years and in many ways, including diplomacy, the rule of law and serious actions such as we have taken yesterday. We have also had several successes — some are published, some are not — apprehending terrorists wherever possible and putting them on trial, thwarting planned attacks and isolating state sponsors of terrorism. But as the President said yesterday, there are times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough.”
SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS FOR THE U.S. STRIKES
— Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia), August 20: “We have not yet gotten assessments of the damage, but I hope that it’s been very decisive and I think it’s very important that we sent the signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist, you become a target.”
— Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi), August 20:
“Based on intelligence provided to me Wednesday, the Administration has very reliable information linking the terrorist Usama bin Ladin and his bases to the cowardly attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Our response appears to be appropriate and just. As I said in my State of the Union response in January: ‘Despite any current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the President in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.’”
— Representative Lee Hamilton (Democrat, Indiana), senior Democrat on House International Relations Committee, August 20:
“I support the action that the President took earlier today. I think the target of terrorism is America and Americans, and this represents a new phase in our effort against terrorism. We must take steps that we have not taken in the past....We are not attacking Islamic countries, we are attacking Islamic extremists who murder people. This should in no way be seen as an attack against Islam.”
— Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina), August 20:
“Today’s U.S. military actions in Sudan and Afghanistan were clearly designed to strike at the heart of a terrorist network that has the blood of American citizens on its hands, and which was planning further attacks on U.S. nationals. It is my strong hope that these operations have been successful....There must be no refuge for terrorists who murder innocent American citizens. Sooner or later, terrorists around the world will realize that America’s differences end at the water’s edge, and that the United States’ political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism.”
— Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona), August 20:
“Today’s military action against Usama bin Ladin’s terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan and Sudan is a welcome response to the August 7 terrorist attacks against the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I know I speak for all Americans in supporting the U.S. service members who took part in this operation, and in hoping that the strikes clearly signal our will to retaliate against terrorists who target American citizens abroad.
“Foreign terrorists must not doubt that political differences at home do not weaken our resolve to use all means at our disposal to defend our national security interests. We must attack terrorism at its source in order to deter it from our own shores....”
— Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas), August 20:
“The United States will not be intimidated by terrorist activities and threats. Terrorists must know that if they attack U.S. citizens, we will respond with deadly force. Those who would harm the security of the United States and its citizens have no place to hide.”
— Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska), August 20:
“I support the President’s actions. Terrorism is the scourge of our time and we must deal with it swiftly, forcefully, and without mercy. Today’s military strikes were a response to the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and to the continued threats against U.S. Embassies around the world. While today’s strikes sent a clear message to the world’s terrorists and those who harbor them, they will not end this threat. We must prepare ourselves for a long fight against terrorism.
“Those who wish America ill and who would resort to cowardly and despicable acts against American citizens must know that we will hunt them down. We will take the necessary actions to protect our citizens and preserve our civilization.”
— Senator Alfonse D’Amato (Republican, New York), August 20:
“If people think the Congress is not going to be totally supportive of the commander-in-chief, they’re just mistaken. This may serve notice that, whatever our local disagreements, we stand with our commander-in-chief, and he was absolutely proper and forceful.”
— Representative Dan Burton (Republican, Indiana), August 20:
“I take the action for what it was — to stop the terrorists and to make them pay for what they did. And that was the right thing to do. That’s coming from one of the president’s severest critics.”
— Representative Ike Skelton (Democrat, Missouri), senior Democrat on House National Security Committee, August 20:
“We just had to do it, we just had to....We’re quite sure the attacks in Africa came from these two places, and we had to strike back.”
— Senator Charles Robb (Democrat, Virginia), August 21:
“Anyone who provides safe harbor for terrorists ought to take a look at what happened this time around....This is only Phase One of an operation that will continue.”
WORLD LEADERS’ STATEMENTS ON U.S. ACTIONS
Prime Minister Tony Blair (UK):
“The atrocities this month in Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, and Omagh have shown the pain and suffering terrorism can bring to innocent people. I strongly support this American action against international terrorists. Terrorists the world over much know that democratic governments will act decisively to prevent their evil crimes.”
Chancellor Helmut Kohl (Germany):
“The German Federal Government decisively condemns all forms of terrorism. Terrorism can only be defeated through cooperation and consistent, determined actions by all states.
“The Federal Government therefore supports all measures to combat this scourge of the international community. This applies especially to the US response against organizations in Afghanistan and Sudan that have been linked to the terrorist attacks against U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
“The Federal Government is united with President Clinton and the international community in the determination that common actions to combat terrorist actions and attacks must be carried forward with commitment and on the foundation of existing international conventions.”
Prime Minister Lionel Jospin (France):
“We expressed our indignation and our compassion and our solidarity in the face of the bombings in Dar es Salaam and in Nairobi. We said we took note of the fact that the American authorities had hit a number of targets, citing the right of legitimate defense of nations which are themselves attacked, by virtue of international law, and in fact I believe we also say clearly we must give determined and firm responses against terrorists, wherever they hit from.”
Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi (Japan):
“I believe firm measures should be taken against acts of terrorism following the bombings of two American Embassies in Africa. Although details of the U.S. military operation are not yet fully known, Washington’s resolute stance toward terrorists is understandable.”
Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schuessel (Austria):
“The EU, which considers the fight against international terrorist activities as its foremost important political task, will use all its means available to effectively combat acts of terror wherever they take place and whatever motives they are related to.”
Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen (Sweden):
“Terrorism is one of the world’s great security challenges....Terrorism must be fought with determination and around the world, and within the system of international law. This underlines the need to intensify further international cooperation against terrorism.”
Foreign Minister Van Aartsen (Netherlands):
“We do not yet know all the details, but from what Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, I am convinced that the United States had adequate reasons and sufficient evidence.”
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Israel):
“We in Israel support the American action fully because...it really is an act of self-defense against ruthless terrorists who need no pretext to kill people, as they did in Nairobi and Tanzania and will do so again unless they are hit — and hit conclusively and repeatedly.”
Presidential Press Secretary Sergei Yyastrzhembskiy (Russia):
“Russia and the United States are in the same boat as far as combating global terrorism is concerned. We will understand the grief being felt over the loss of American lives, primarily in Kenya. There is no doubt that we have coordinated, and will continue to coordinate, the fight against global terrorism.”
Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit (Turkey):
“Terrorism is the gravest danger facing the world and humanity today. Turkey is one of the countries that suffers most from terrorism, which has gained an international dimension. We must view with understanding the sensitivity that the US administration has shown in response to the attacks carried out against the US Missions and Embassy buildings which, according to international law, have immunity in all respects.”
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhu Bangzao (China):
“China’s position of condemning all forms of terrorist activities is clear and specific. We stand for handling the explosions in Kenya and Tanzania according to the United Nations Charter and the guiding principles of international law. The international community should strengthen its coordination and cooperation in rebuffing international terrorist activities so as to eliminate the source that generates international terrorism and to safeguard world peace and stability.”
Foreign Minister Jan Kavan (Czech Republic): “International terrorism cannot be tolerated...it must be fought...international terrorists must know that they are punishable.”
President Yoweri Museveni (Uganda)
Museveni expressed his strong support for the U.S. actions against terrorism. He stated the one reason why Uganda does not have diplomatic relations with Sudan is because of its terrorist behavior — as evidenced by the massacre of Atiak (Northern Uganda), the kidnap and defilement of the Abuke Girls School (Northern Uganda), and the recent Kichwamba incident (Western Uganda) where more than 30 students were incinerated and others kidnaped.
Pre-war quotes from “lying” House and Senate democrats...
“In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the 4 years since the inspectors, 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-Qaida 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 wiill continue to increase his capability 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.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. Hillary Clinton
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10288&position=all
John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)
John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”
“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
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
“When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.” -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all
John Kerry on the floor of the Senate
October 2002:
“With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question:
Why?
Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up?
Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community?
Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?
Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke?
Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits?
Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously?
Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified?
Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10171&position=all
“The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam’s possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.
Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10090&dbname=2002_record
John Kerry: “I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that—that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.” (October 2002)
John Kerry: “If You Don’t Believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” (January 2003)
John Kerry: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. (March 2003)
“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.”...”Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.” –
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John Edwards
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10325&position=all
“There is no doubt that since that time Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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, December 5, 2001
http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm
“We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam..” -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer – Public Broadcasting Service
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
“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
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
“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
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy
“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
Congressional Record – Robert Byrd
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S9874&position=all
“When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.” -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all
“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
Congressional Record –Sen. Jay Rockefeller
“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
Congressional Record – Rep. Henry Waxman
MY SOURCE FOR ALL OF THESE QUOTES:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/4694
Brilliant Gateway Pundit -and his equally brill readers - remember what so many of us have forgotten: This weekend in 1998 brought the Iraq intelligence that shaped our policy (under Clinton) to depose Saddam and got us all talking about the WMD which, as we all know, Bush (and only Bush) “lied” about. He brings us the video:
“Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them….I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, “You cannot defy the will of the world,” and when I say to him, “You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
Yeah, he always could talk the good game, anyway.
Do go over to Gateway’s and be reminded of a few other peculiarities about how history has been revised on this issue, is still being revised. Also check out some of the quotes in the comments section!
And remember: Iraq and WMD - you heard it from the Clinton Administration first! You heard it from many others, too, but it started at this SOTU address - that’s right, the intel pre-dated Bush.
I can be more generous than many who find it easier to say “Bush lied” than to actually look at the facts; I happen to believe that Clinton was telling the truth as he understood and believed it.
One other good thing to remember as you consider this election year: Sandy Berger, in preparing to face the 9/11 Commission w/ President Clinton went into the National Archives, stole classified documents relevant to the investigation and destroyed them. Clinton chucked, “that’s Sandy” and the press yawned. And Berger will have his security clearance back in time to be on Hillary’s staff.
Oh and, don’t be fooled by the press venting a little at the Clintons. They’re still ignoring most of the muck, and following the guidance.
This is originated from the NYSlimes.
This negates their years of lies about GWB and WMD.
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.