Iraq had been suspected of having nuclear weapons since atleast 1998. So why is everyone calling Bush a liar, and not these other people?
"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 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 Sens. 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 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 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. "[W]ithout 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 has 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.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdqu... Why is it that Bill Clinton did not invade Iraq while Bush did, Clinton knew the evidence was shaky. Did it ever occur to anyone that it was Reagan who sold weapons to Saddam in the first place? He also sold arms to Osama Bin Laden. the entire democrat party was on board with the wmd's funny how the turn coats hold true to their colors.... Amen! It seems so difficult for people to get that the media has an extremely selective memory when it comes to blame for the perceived failure in Iraq.
They also like to twist definitions, and say that the war in Iraq is not over. It is. We won the war in Iraq when it was announced that the mission was accomplished and we were ending the primary military operations.
At that point, it became a peacekeeping operation, which is what we're in now. The media wants so badly to maintain the image that it's still a war, though, because if they admit that we've already won the war, then it'll be so much harder to help the Dems win next year... Obvious Question
Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and other Democrats, all saw the same intelligence back when Clinton was President and George Tenet headed the CIA. They all claimed Iraq had WMD which threatened America. If there really were no WMD, why are they not held equally accountable for misleading the American people? Shouldn't they be required to reveal the basis for their assertions? George Bush retained Clinton's CIA chief who reportedly assured Bush that it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Other intelligence services including those of NATO and Israel also believed there were WMD. Why don't the critics attempt to discover the evidence for those conclusions?
What was Saddam Hussein hiding with his elaborate schemes to frustrate the U.N. arms inspectors? Why would Saddam needlessly provoke the U.N. and the U.S. into going to war against him if he had nothing to hide? Why haven't the critics answered this question?
Shortly before the war, it was reported that U.S. satellites spotted truck convoys moving from Iraq to Syria at night. One possible explanation is that Saddam had WMD and removed them before the war. Various reports claim that the Russians helped move convoys and planeloads of materials from Iraq into Syria to at least three heavily guarded locations, identified, at least two years ago, by Debka.com and other news sources.
Inexplicably, there has been no effort to discover what was moved. If WMD were indeed removed in this manner, shouldn't we know it? If it turns out that WMD were removed then the war in Iraq becomes justified and the focus should then shift to Syria. If Saddam Hussein was not allowed to have WMD, why then is Syria, Iran's new ally, allowed to have possible WMD with no inspection? Is there unfinished business relative to Saddam's WMD? Is Syria now able to threaten Israel and U.S. forces in the region with chemical and biological weapons?
Where is Saddam's bio weapons expert known as Doctor Germ? What was her work? Saddam's chemical weapons expert known as "Chemical Ali" was recently sentenced to death. What was he doing prior to the war in 2003? Two of Saddam's sons-in law defected and testified about Saddam's WMD. They were spirited back by Saddam and then promptly killed. What did they reveal to U.S. authorities?
Libya's Colonel Khaddaffi gave up his WMD to the U.S. What weapons did the U.S. recover and ship back to America and who was working on these programs? Did Saddam Hussein sponsor the Libyan WMD program?
Early Reports
Seven months after the war began, an extensive report was published presenting a wealth of information on Iraqi WMD and containing 76 open source citations. It described how and what was hidden and how much of it was moved to Syria and Lebanon. It is 鈥榓 must read'. The following paragraph is excerpted from that report.
"Now, it would be common to ask for the reason the Bush Administration has not revealed that WMDs are in Syria and/or Lebanon. According to Israeli intelligence sources, it is likely because exposure of that would lead to a domino effect where evidence would leak out that Iraq's programs had roles played by Egypt, Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia. [plus the French, Germans and Russians] Such leaks will enflame the region and especially Iraq, and make things much harder, resulting in a more bloody and costly war and diminishing likelihood that other countries would send forces in.[71] Additionally, people would be skeptic, saying it was a lie so that the war-mongering neo-cons were trying to justify a new conquest. The other side would put enormous pressure to bring the war to Syria-a war we are not yet ready to fight."
Iraqi General Georges Sada
In another intelligence revelation, ex Iraqi General Georges Sada recently published his book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam Hussein. In it he explains how, just prior to the war, Saddam moved his WMD to Syria, with Russian help. Go to www.amazon.com and search for author Georges Sada. Click on picture of book, "Saddam's Secrets". Scroll down to read reviews.
Reviews from Publishers Weekly:
Reviewer 1: In General Sada's unique position, he was able to observe some of the worst of Saddam's behavior and trickery and confirms in this book not only the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the extraordinary lengths that Saddam went to hide these weapons....
Reviewer 2: The author tells how Saddam managed to trick the world into believing he did not have weapons of mass destruction. He goes into detail how Saddam managed to hide all evidence of WMD's and how he managed to move all of them out of Iraq under the noses of the United Nations weapons inspectors. ....
Reviewer 3: Of particular note are tapes of more than 3,000 hours of Saddam Hussein meeting with his war cabinet and millions of pages of documents that contain vital information about Saddam's WMD program and plans for transporting the WMDs out of the country in order to dupe the weapons inspectors.... American and world citizens must demand that these tapes and documents be immediately released, translated, and analyzed in their entirety.
Intelligence Summit Meeting
Hundreds of security experts of diverse backgrounds convened on February 17, 2006 to evaluate Iraqi WMD. The organizers announced that translations of 12 hours of tapes of Saddam Hussein's cabinet meetings would be revealed at the meeting. In it Saddam would be heard talking about Iraq's WMD, its nuclear programs and how he fooled UN inspectors. Ten days before the meeting attendees received messages from inside the administration pressuring them not to attend. "However, these new tapes would have forced the intelligence community to admit that they misled President George W. Bush to state that Iraq had no WMD. Such admission, apparently, was something the intelligence community wanted to avoid by attempting to discredit this conference."
Captured Tapes and Documents
"Who'll Let the Docs Out? Bush wants to release the Saddam files but his [national] intelligence chief [John Negroponte] stalls. By Stephen F. Hayes" 03/20/2006, Volume 011, Issue 25 of the WeeklyStandard.com
Excerpts:
"On February 16, President George W. Bush assembled a small group of congressional Republicans for a briefing on Iraq." Representative Mike Pence said to President Bush, "There are 3,000 hours of Saddam tapes and millions of pages of other documents that we captured after the war. When will the American public get to see this information?"
"Bush replied that he wanted the documents released. He turned to [National Security Advisor Stephen] Hadley and asked for an update. Hadley explained that John Negroponte, Bush's Director of National Intelligence, "owns the documents" and that DNI lawyers were deciding how they might be handled.
.......
"Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. "This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out." The president would reiterate this point before the meeting adjourned. .....
......
"Negroponte never got the message. Or he is choosing to ignore it. He has done nothing to expedite the exploitation of the documents. And he continues to block the growing congressional effort, led by [Rep. Pete] Hoekstra, [the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee] to have the documents released.
鈥業 found Saddam's WMD bunkers'
Posted By Melanie Phillips On April 19, 2007 @ 9:26 am In Daily Mail |
A devastating expose of criminal incompetence and cover-up by the U.S. government. The first two paragraphs follow.
"It's a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It's also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmers in Saddam's Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam's use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons."
"Dave Gaubatz, however, says you could not be more wrong. Saddam's WMD did exist. He should know because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don't know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, 鈥榣ost' his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam's WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war."
Media Spin
Another problem with objectively appraising the danger of WMD is exemplified in a recent article that originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times. The headline reads: "Scientist profits on fears of WMD. - Germ-weapons expert wins grants, federal contracts through his warnings of mass-casualty biological attack." Notice how the reader is immediately primed to be suspicious by the use of emotionally charged words such as "...profits on fears..."
The first paragraph reads,
"After helping to lead the Soviet Union's germ-weapons program, Ken Alibek defected to the United States and began warning about the threat of a mass-casualty biological attack. Alibek also has sought to profit from the fear of such weapons of mass destruction, landing federal contracts or grants totaling about $28 million."
The first sentence above acknowledges that Ken Alibeck had good reason to know about the Soviet Union's germ-weapons program and hence he has credibility. But then, as if to immediately undermine his credibility, there follows the insinuation that, ..." Alibek also has sought to profit from the fear ..." This implies a selfish, if not a sinister, motivation. And in support of this insinuation we are told that his company received government contracts or grants, as if that alone was evidence of wrongdoing.
If the LA Times has any proof of wrongdoing by Alibeck let them produce the evidence. Instead, this news implies an accusation without actually making a charge that could expose them to be prosecuted for libel. Honest reporting would require a clear separation between presenting hard facts and offering editorial opinion. Their blatant failure to observe journalistic ethics raises the question of an agenda on the part of the LA Times.
Too many people are imposing their biases and opinions on the WMD issue which makes it much harder to get the full truth and to defend against a future attack. IRAQ WAS A THREAT!!!!!!
(CNN) -- 2004 -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/cli...
"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."
-Bill Clinton on "Larry King Live" 07/23/2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/2...
Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote
Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Posted: 10:10 AM EDT (1410 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/2... Yep and now they all deny it. At this point, I don't care. Bush was the one that got us into this mess. Sadaam dropped chemical on the Kurds as well as the Iranians in the 80's. Are not chem weapons considered WMD?
And why is Iraq's army of the 80's equipped with Soviet stuff....just a question... And Clinton did not go in for a full offensive because he was satisfied that threat was confined. 1998 - 2003 ; There's a five year gap there. Things aren't static.
And I don't know why this isn't obvious to everybody yet, but Bush knew damn well there were NO wmds in Iraq. Why? Because if he had seriously thought that, a land invasion would have been totally, and absolutely out of the question. NO, NO, NO! I'LL NEVER BELIEVE IT! SADDAM WAS A SAINT, UP THERE WITH JESUS AND MOTHER TERESA! THE REAL EVIL IS THE IMPERIALISTIC AMERICAN WAR MACHINE! DEATH TO AMERICA, THE GREAT SATAN!
CLINTON WAS GOD! BUSH IS THE DEVIL! AMERICA SHOULDN'T DO WHATS RIGHT, BUT WHAT IS EASY, AND WHATEVER MAKES THE USA SEEM WEAK, AND OPEN FOR ATTACK (like running away when things got messy in Somalia, or blowing up a baby-food factory in the Sudan in response to terrorist attacks, rather than actually confronting terror... cause you know that could upset the terrorists... and we wouldn't want that would we, better to just leave them alone to plot their next wave of attacks)!
LOL... there's the leftist response... No. As you have pointed out, Clinton recognized the threat of Saddam in 1998, when he drafted his toothless resolution.
Hillary is hiding behind the "Bush lied" crowd. I don't think we should let her. EVERYONE KNEW Saddam had WMD's! WE gave them to him! Reagan and Bush I gave Saddam and Al Qaida/ Bin Laden WEAPONS! Saddam to fight the Kurds and Bin Laden to fight the Soviets. So why aren't Bush and Reagan held accountable for these actions? ? ? Those in the Congress and Senate were motivated by Bush's politics of FEAR to vote for authorization to go to war. Anyone who wasn't "With us" was "against us," the same reason Congress and the Senate passed the PATRIOT ACT. And let's not forget that REPUBLICANS were the MAJORITY in BOTH the HOUSE and the SENATE voting for the authorization to go to war and for the un-Patriot-ic Act. The "information" the Senate and House based their decisions on was given to them BY THE WHITE HOUSE! And we all KNOW that that information was MISLEADING. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY REPUBLICANS! For the party that advocates self-reliance and self-responsibility they don't seem to practice it! they ve forgotten all that though. Politicians (the WHOLE LOT OF THEM) are bungholes. Its OUR TAX DOLLARS they spent to invade, but now the dems & some repubs have forgotten all about it. It the dime had been coming form any of them, they would have investigated further, and Im talking Bush, Reid Clinton. Lott. The WHOLE LOT. Yes, I did know that. I also know that rather than attacking Iraq, Clinton applied containment. When Bush got into Baghdad he found that Clinton's containment policy had obviously been working. Chalk up another mistake in a long line of them for Dubya. Yes, I've got a bigger list than that if you'd like it. Further, our President got his information, not just from the CIA but from France and Israel. Finally, how stupid must Saddam have been if, he knew we were considering going in, and he left his WMDs right where they were? How absurd would that be? Given all this and the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, why did Bush ignore Clinton's advise that something was about to happen to the US and needed further investigation? you are trying to convince the ultimate flip floppers that they flip flop worse than a fish out of water? good luck. they will laugh at you and call you a liar. even if you show them film clips, your still a liar. Lots of people thought Saddam had them. And they thought so because that's what they were told. And in the late 1990s, they had no factual data to prove otherwise.
Here is what is different about Bush: there were UN weapons inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ, they had been there for months, their access had not been impeded, they had received all the documentation they asked for. And they had found nothing. A couple of weeks before they were to make their final report, Bush decided to attack.
The question in my mind has always been, why didn't Bush wait three weeks for the weapons inspectors to finish their work? After all, there was no IMMINENT threat, so why hurry? And the only answer that makes sense is because if he had waited, they would have reported that Saddam had no WMDs and thus negated Bush's excuse for invading. So obviously, Bush had to invade before the inspectors could finish the job, otherwise he would never get support for the attack.
Bush KNEW that the inspectors, in months of poking around, had found nothing. Those who came before him might have suspected, might have assumed, might have believed. Bush KNEW. And he knew that there were no WMDs, which is why he had to attack before the results could be completed.
The weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time make all the difference. 1) Who gave him the weapons in the first place? Don't you remember the photo of Saddam and Rumsfield from way back when?
2)Most of your quotes are ppl's remarks based off of the false info. that Bush wanted everyone to see and believe. Hello?????? How do you NOT get that?
3) BUSH is at fault because HE DID THIS!!!!!!!!! Every major country's intelligence showed it had WMDs and if it did and the terrorist got them how would the liberals be reacting now if Bush had done nothing. It was a chance after 9-11 we could not take. |
