The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

Grateful Heart said:

Ah... when Clinton declared that Saddam's regime posed a nuclear, biological and chemical threat, he was basing his actions on solid and accurate intelligence. When Bush declared that Saddam's regime posed a nuclear, biological and chemical threat, he was lying. Got it.

:2wave:

Click to expand...

ADK_Forever said:

In the upcoming Newsweek issue, May 18, another former Bush aid, Richard N. Haas, shines a little more light on how open to diplomacy the Bush administration truly was (NOT!) and just how early Bush had made up his mind to invade an innocent country. All contrary to Bush's public comments!

Click to expand...

zimmer said:

Please help fill the gaps of the last 8 years.
I missed something.

Click to expand...

zimmer said:

Did we invade the sheep of Kanuckistan?
Didn't think so?

Click to expand...

Haiti?
Er, no. Clinton did that.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. The Balkans? No. Clinton again.

Click to expand...

All those dead Skinnies?
Clinton.

Click to expand...

Rwanda?
Didn't do anything there.
800,000 dead.

Click to expand...

Iraq?
What did Maddie Albright say about all those dead children?
500,000 innocent kids?
MA: Worth the cost".

Click to expand...

That is some combination of circumstances on The Clintons watch.
Millions of dead, and nobody freed.

Click to expand...

What "innocent country" did Bush invade?

Click to expand...

North Korea is still there.

Click to expand...

Please help fill the gaps of the last 8 years.
I missed something.

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

I always love how quickly the pro-Bush/anti-Dem crowd rushes to dismiss a source before they actually read what the source has to say. Books are the devil!!!! And anyone who worked for Bush then later criticized him is a publicity whoring liar!!!!

I remember someone on here trying to tell me that Richard Clarke was a disgruntled, washed up hack. That was their defense to his allegations. He cited dates, other witnesses, the whole shooting match. Yet he was a nobody, a turncoat, looking only to make a fortune. They never read his book, nor could they actually cite anything in his background. All they knew was he was a Bush backstabber and that was enough.

Rubes.

Click to expand...

Tell me the story about the post-Gulf War discovery and the vice president --

Richard Clarke: During the course of the first Gulf War, one of the things I did at the request of the secretary of state [James Baker] was to plan for what became the U.N. Special Commission that would go into Iraq after the war and look for weapons of mass destruction. In the first few months of that commission, it was filled with American and British special forces and intelligence officers dressed up in civilian clothes and carrying the U.N. flag.

One of the early operations we planned was a raid on what was the Agricultural Ministry but we had reason to believe was actually something else. And it was a surprise. We went there, broke down doors, blew off locks, got into the sanctum sanctorum. The Iraqis immediately reacted, surrounded the facility and prevented the U.N. inspectors from getting out.

We thought that might happen, too, so we had given them satellite telephones. They translated the nuclear reports on site into English from the Arabic and read them to us over the satellite telephones. My secretary stayed up all night transcribing these reports from Baghdad. What they said, very clearly, was there was a massive nuclear weapons development program that was probably nine to 18 months away from having its first nuclear weapons detonation and that CIA had totally missed it; we had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility. Didn't know it was there; never dropped one bomb on it.

We prepared this report so that when the secretary of defense [Cheney] and the secretary of state arrived in the morning, it was on their desk. I know that Dick Cheney that morning looked at that report and said, "Here's what the Iraqis themselves are saying: that there's this huge facility that was never hit during the war; that they were very close to making a nuclear bomb, and CIA didn't know it." I'm sure he said to himself, "I can never trust CIA again to tell me when a country is about to make a nuclear bomb."

So he's probably carrying that bone in his throat for eight years out of government.

RC: There's no doubt that the Dick Cheney who comes back into office nine years later has that as one of the things burnt into his memory: that Iraq wants a nuclear weapon; Iraq was that close to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue.

Click to expand...

bhkad said:

Richard Clarke:



FRONTLINE: the dark side: interviews: richard clarke | PBS

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

... And there was no evidence of WMD's. They knew this.

They sent our sons and daughters to war, we killed Iraqi sons and daughters. And for what? Nothing. The entire premise of the war was challenged before the first shot was fired due to a lack of supporting evidence, and guess what...Richard Clarke and the rest were vindicated. No WMD's.

Click to expand...

WARNER: ... As you recently stated, Dr. Kay -- and I quote you -- "It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war," end quote.

WARNER: Further, you said on NBC's "Today Show" on Tuesday that it was, quote, "absolutely prudent for the U.S. to go to war."

KAY: We're also in a period in which we've had intelligence surprises in the proliferation area that go the other way. The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years on, that we underestimated. And, in fact, we didn't discover it. It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country who pointed the international community at the location.

The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.

There's a long record here of being wrong. There's a good reason for it. There are probably multiple reasons. Certainly proliferation is a hard thing to track, particularly in countries that deny easy and free access and don't have free and open societies.

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

Click to expand...

zimmer said:

Lerxst: Why not spell it out for me... save me a trip to Crawford? Or is it that you are wholly incompetent to make the case against Bush and hiding behind hollow words?



This isn't the best of the testimony, but it'll do in a pinch... because I've gotta run.
David Kay's testimony under oath before the Senate Armed Services Committee blows your hollow BS out of the water.
His entire testimony is rife with reasons it was the right thing to do.

Remember "Connect the dots"? Guess not.
That was only one tactic in the Libs perverted little game of CYA for 30 years of hostility to our military and intel services.

Read, learn, grow.
CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

Click to expand...

KAY: Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.

Senator Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction.

I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

Click to expand...

I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there.

Is it theoretically possible in a country as vast as that that they've hidden? It's theoretically possible, but we went after this not in the way of trying to find where the weapons are hidden. When you don't find them in the obvious places, you look to see: Were they produced? Were there people that produced them? Were there the inputs to the production process? And you do that and you eliminate.

That's what I mean by unresolved ambiguity. When the ISG wraps up its work, whether it be six months or six years from now, there are still going to be people to say, "You didn't look everywhere. Isn't it possible it was hidden someplace?" And the answer has got to be, honestly, "Yes, it's possible." But you try to eliminate that by this other process.

And when I reached the conclusion -- which I admit is partial and is purely mine -- that I think there were no large stockpiles of WMD, it's based on that process.

Click to expand...

LEVIN: Dr. Kay, on the question of stockpiles you have stated, I believe, that in your opinion Iraq did not have large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in 2002. Is that correct?

KAY: That's correct, Senator.

LEVIN: Do you have any evidence that they had any stockpiles, large or small, in 2002?

KAY: We simply have no evidence, Senator.

LEVIN: You've not uncovered any evidence of small stockpiles?

KAY: We've not uncovered any small stockpiles, that's correct.

LEVIN: Have you uncovered any evidence that they had small stockpiles in 2002?

KAY: We've got evidence that they certainly could have produced small amounts, but we've not discovered evidence of the stockpiles.

Click to expand...

LEVIN: On the question of the vans, according to the New York Times on January 26th, you indicated that there's a consensus in the intelligence community that the trailers that were found were intended to produce hydrogen for weather balloons or possibly rocket fuel, but not for producing biological warfare agents.

LEVIN: Was that an accurate report of your position?

KAY: That's probably not my exact words, but roughly accurate.

I think the consensus opinion is that when you look at those two trailers, while had capabilities in many areas, their actual intended use was not for the production of biological weapons.

Click to expand...

LEVIN: My final question, Dr. Kay, subject to the chair perhaps commenting on my request, is this: Is it your judgment that the aluminum tubes that Iraq was trying to acquire were intended or used for a centrifuge program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons? Is that your view?

KAY: Senator Levin, this is an area which falls into what Senator Warner referred to -- where I think it's important that the investigation continue.

It is my judgment, based on the evidence that was collected, but there clearly can be more, that it's more than probable that those tubes were intended for use in a conventional missile program, rather than in a centrifuge program. But it's an open question still being investigated.

LEVIN: But that is your judgment, that they were not related to uranium enrichment?

KAY: That is my personal judgment, that they probably were not, based on evidence -- but there's still more evidence possible to gain.

LEVIN: One short, final question, my second final question: In your judgment, had Iraq reconstituted its nuclear weapon program in the way you understand the word "reconstitute"?

KAY: It was in the early stages of renovating the program, building new buildings. It was not a reconstituted, full-blown nuclear program.

Click to expand...

MCCAIN: When you answered a question from Reuters, "What happened to the stockpiles of chemical and bioweapons that everyone expected to be there?," your answer was simple: quote, "I don't think they existed."

So what needs to be established here is that when we -- at least, I believe is your view and certainly mine -- as you just stated, America, the world and Iraq is a far better and safer place with Saddam Hussein gone from power. And the sacrifice made by American citizens, and that are serving and sacrificing today was not only worth it, but very important to the future of the Middle East and to the world. Do you share that?

KAY: That's certainly true, Senator. I probably learned not to speak to wire reporters and even to watch out for senators who want one-word answers.

Click to expand...

KAY: I am convinced that that is the important forefront of the inquiry that, quite frankly, you must undertake.

I've got hypotheses of where I think things generically have occurred. I think we became almost addicted to the incredible amount of effort that UNSCOM and U.N. inspectors could produce on the scene and that flow of information...

MCCAIN: Including intelligence gained by the previous administration.

KAY: That's correct. And did not develop our own HUMINT sources there.

Now, this really goes back, quite frankly -- the change took place if you look at it goes back to the Carter administration, when, as a result of things that had occurred in the Vietnam area, essentially our HUMINT capability was spun down and we got in the habit of relying on intelligence collected by liaison services.

If a liaison -- an individual from another country, gets caught as a spy it doesn't make the front page of The Washington Post or New York Times, it's not politically embarrassing and, quite frankly, you don't have a dead American. So there are good reasons to do it.

More importantly, and things that I think you've got to worry about, we have all stressed, why didn't the intelligence community connect the dots prior to 9/11? It all looks very clear in retrospect.

Quite frankly, the most common problem you have with analysts is you do not want them to overanalyze the data. If there are only a few dots connected, maybe they don't belong connected.

I'm convinced in this area, partly because of Iraqi behavior -- to a large extent because of Iraqi behavior -- they cheated, they lied, we knew it, UNSCOM, the U.N. had caught them -- we got in the habit of new pieces of information accreted to this overall consensus view without challenging that consensus.

MCCAIN: Do you believe that those that provided false intelligence estimates ought to be held accountable?

KAY: Absolutely.

Click to expand...

• That the Bush 43 Administration was keen on going to war w/Iraqi no sooner than GW Bush was in the White house.
• That the WMD argument was trumped up.
• That Bush 43 had little foreign relations experience - a point that was made time and time again in the 2000 Presidential debates, but nobody cared enough to listen back then.
• That most of W's real power rested w/his cabinet members. (See Dick Chaney for details)

Lerxst said:

So where in that testimony does it say that Iraq had WMD's? Where in that testimony did it detail the evidence of WMD's? Hmmm....nowhere. David Kay's testimony blew nothing out of the water. David Kay is desperately looking for a friend here because he can't avoid the fact that we got it all wrong. The testimony here is rife with indication that the case for war was built on a massive intelligence failure, that even Kay was fooled into believing they would find WMD's. If you read the whole thing what Kay is saying is that Saddam was in violation of many U.N. resolutions, but there was nothing to indicate he actually had a real WMD program and absolutely no stockpiles of WMD's. The ISG effort was very politicized and the subject of much heated debate. Just look at the tone of those interviewing Kay. You practically have the Republicans (Warner and McCain) qualifying his answers both before and after he makes his statements, and you have the Democrats asking him tough questions and trying to get him to the point. For Pete's sake you have Kay, whom you put full stock in given the nature of your post, saying "we were all wrong" and you have Warner saying "now now, didn't you say we still have work to do? don't you think you are being premature here?" To which Kay says "well yeah" and then later continues to say "in my opinion we were wrong."

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

On the intelligence breakdown...

Kay's statement here came after the invasion had already taken place, after Kay admitted they went in thinking they were going to find WMD's. Richard Clarke and his team had actually examined as much intel as there was prior to the invasion and advised the Bush administration they didn't believe there were any WMD's there. That was ignored. Both the U.S. and the U.K. were guilty of making much of their case on unvetted, suspect raw intelligence and a lack of actual information...they were estimating and speculating. Kay says as much here. His defense is "hey, we were justified because we jsut didn't know for sure." That is a fundamental flaw in justifying the death sentences of people. You had better have some evidence. We had none before the invasion, we had none after the invasion.

You blew nothing out of the water, all you did is reinforce my case that the U.S. made a huge mistake and did so based on a very bad intelligence gambit. In fact we did this knowing our intel was far from solid.

And if you are going to take shots at me, you might figure out who you are actually addressing in your post. I didn't tell you take a trip to Crawford. But I'll gladly spell it out for you, and gladly debunk your faulty argument.

Now, how about that other post of yours I broke down? You wanna have a go at that or was this it? Here is a hint, if you are going to address a post of mine citing a lack of evidence for justifying the war, don't produce a series of statements that back me up. All you've done is find someone who said "I think we were justified in invading based on the intel" and then says "we were all wrong."

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

Dick Cheney comes back into office NINE YEARS LATER. I don't give two ****s if Dick Cheney had a bad taste in his mouth from nine years ago. His judgement was crap and that bad tasted doesn't exonerate him. It was his duty, and that of the rest of our nations leadership, to deal with the evidence at hand in 2003. At the time they were deciding to invade Iraq, not a bunch of holdover feelings from nine years ago. And there was no evidence of WMD's. They knew this.

They sent our sons and daughters to war, we killed Iraqi sons and daughters. And for what? Nothing. The entire premise of the war was challenged before the first shot was fired due to a lack of supporting evidence, and guess what...Richard Clarke and the rest were vindicated. No WMD's.

Click to expand...

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

Click to expand...

zimmer said:

Lerxst.

You did not read the testimony.

Click to expand...

I have gone through it several times after watching it... on CNNi.
Kay admits they were wrong about WMD, but says all were wrong. But they acted on the best intel they had, and had done the right thing.
He also notes failures in other directions as quoted above.

Click to expand...

He says we may have been lucky, and we could still have fallout.
He says the regime was dangerous, volatile because it was instable. The chances of a terrorists hooking up with someone in the regime was real because of this instability.

Click to expand...

My few words can do scant justice to his testimony.

Click to expand...

In all seriousness, this document should put your ill feeling to rest if you are intellectually honest.

Click to expand...

David Kay is a serious man, an expert in his field.

Click to expand...

His answers are thoughtful and based on a thorough understanding of the history.

Click to expand...

He is a professional in every sense of the word. And he does expose warts and all.

Click to expand...

If you want an emotional pinata, that's another story.

Click to expand...

bhkad said:

Same dynamic existed with regard to a threat to Israel then, with Iraq, as now, with Iran.

You can't assume they don't have the goods because the stakes are too high if you are wrong. You have to believe the bluff.

And Saddam was sending out signals that he had WMD's.



Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - CBS News

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

No, you can't assume they do have them when you are talking about killing so many people. I don't know how many times I have to keep saying this, but our own CSG, acting on intel they were getting from the CIA and other sources, advised the Bush administration that there is no evidence of WMD's and that invading Iraq would be a huge mistake and detract from our efforts to go after Al Qaeda. Do not sit here and try to convince me that in the post war failure an interrogators statements about Saddam needing to keep up appearances equates to a justification for war. We had intel that said there were very likely no WMD's period, we had UNSCOM inspectors saying there was no evidence of WMD's at that point and requesting more time, and we had the Iraqi government itself saying "we don't have WMD's." So because this guy says "Saddam wanted people to think he had a program because it gave the illusion of power" falls far short of Saddam announcing to the world "we have WMD's!" We had UNSCOM inspector on the ground and the Iraqi government, who realized we were dead serious, allowing access and movement throughout the country at the end. And those inspectors messages were quite clear and very urgent..."DO NOT INVADE!"

Click to expand...

bhkad said:

Same dynamic existed with regard to a threat to Israel then, with Iraq, as now, with Iran.

You can't assume they don't have the goods because the stakes are too high if you are wrong. You have to believe the bluff.

And Saddam was sending out signals that he had WMD's.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - CBS News

Click to expand...

Truth Detector said:

This is not about getting the TRUTH for these deniers; this is all about politically impugning good people for the mere fact that they disagree with their political philosophy.

Click to expand...

Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says - In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare. - Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph. - A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."

Click to expand...

It is undisputed that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. However all the UNMOVIC inspectors, using the latest state of the art detection technology, had not found a trace of any current ongoing nuclear program in Iraq. The United States had to rely on forged evidence to get the world to believe them.

White House knew there were no WMD CIA - The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said, according to CBS. - "The (White House) group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested." - "We said: 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said: 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change'," added Drumheller, whose CIA operation was assigned the task of debriefing the Iraqi official. - "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," the former CIA agent told CBS.

Click to expand...

Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says - The study also finds that the Bush administration switched its focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein early on – only five months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States

Click to expand...

15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff) . The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

Click to expand...

Truth Detector said:

You can only laugh at the Liberal partisan hack response to Democrats and the Clinton administration believing the IDENTICAL intelligence and making the IDENTICAL claims Bush did; "well they were all liars too."

Click to expand...

This is what we call denial folks. No amount of credible debate will change this condition and no amount of FACTS will cause them to pause in their rabid denial of REALITY.

Click to expand...

What this means is that any attempts to explain REALITY to them using the FACTS will only lead into a circle of futility where they are caught in their lies and distortions, run off to the next lie and distortion eventually ending up with the INITIAL lie and distortion.

Click to expand...

This is not about getting the TRUTH for these deniers; this is all about politically impugning good people for the mere fact that they disagree with their political philosophy.

Click to expand...

This thread is a GREAT example of what I mean by this "circle of futility." Perhaps I should re-name it the circle of denial?

:2wave:

Click to expand...

ADK_Forever said:

OUCH! You got a permit for that weapon? :lol:

Stick a fork in him. He's DONE!!! :applaud:applaud:applaud

Click to expand...

Words of Mass Destruction

Claim: Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.

"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 the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"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 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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"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 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 (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 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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.

"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

"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.


In December 2001, nine members of Congress (a group which included both Democrats and Republicans) wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to step up support for the internal Iraqi opposition seeking to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Included in that letter was the following paragraph:
This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Unless the version reproduced on the Department of State's web site is in error, however, Senator Bob Graham of Florida was not one of the signatories to that letter.

On 19 September 2002, Senator Carl Levin — by then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee — addressed a committee hearing on U.S. policy on Iraq. His introductory remarks included the following:
The Armed Services Committee meets this afternoon to continue our hearings on U.S. policy toward Iraq. The purpose of these hearings is to give the Administration an opportunity to present its position on Iraq, and to allow this Committee to examine the Administration's proposal with Administration witnesses and experts outside of the government.

Click to expand...

zimmer said:

Only in a world where facts don't matter, history is forgotten, and emotion rules the roost... In that case perhaps.

You folks exhibit what I call Titanic Politics.
Setting a course of personal destruction and executing it flawlessly.

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
Only the tip of the iceberg.

We start with Levin because Lerxst likes eem so much.



YouTube - Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, & WMD

.

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

Did Clinton invade Iraq, completely deconstruct the governance of the country, fire the military, and set off a years long and bloody insurgency based upon the info he had at that time? No he didn't. Very big difference.

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

As has already been pointed out, things in Iraq had changed between when Clinton was in and when Bush was pushing.

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

What did the UNSCOM inspectors say about the WMD's in light of the plans to invade?

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

What did the Counter Terrorism Security Group say about WMD's and the plans to invade?

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

What part of "what Clinton thought is irrelevant" do you not get? Clinton wasn't the President leading this nation around by the nose with bad intel and pushing Congress to war with the same.

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

Why don't you offer up some relevant facts then. All you are doing is bloviating at this point.

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

How about, for once in your life here at DP, instead of whining, you actually put up a fact based argument and let's test it.

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

This post is a great example of someone who types a lot and says very little.

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

You keep falling back on this as if you are making a point. First of all, you go back to 1998 which is irrelevant to the situation in 2003. Second, you have members of Congress who are making statements based upon information that has been provided to them under direction of the Bush White House. Do you know who prepared and cleared the information that was given to the House and Senate? Do you read books? Or do you just pick things off of the internet? Why do you think so many members were so critical of the Bush administration after the truth began to come out? When you have Dick Cheney giving fast paced, deliberately controlled briefings to the Senate when it came to gathering support for the war, using intel that was hand picked for the purpose of getting a "yes" you know there lies the potential for problems.

So much of what drove those statements in 2002-2003 was born out of cherry picking or manipulating intel. I've got five books that detail this process and name names and date ranges. Would you like the list?

Click to expand...

Truth Detector said:

You are quite hysterical in your desperate, yet false assertions; the notion that the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't act on the same intelligence that the Bush Administration requires willful denial or perhaps even willful denial.

The purely hyper partisan political BS being foisted on the public by Liberals who are running from their votes to authorize the war is just that, hyper partisan political BS.

Tell me something, who forced this false intelligence on the following Liberal Democrats prior to Bush's Presidency?

Democrats on WMDs Before the Iraq War - Video


"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 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

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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

You just cannot fabricate the level of hysterical BS it takes to believe that Bush was somehow "selective" in his choice of intelligence based on the comments by the PREVIOUS Democrat Administrations own assertions; unless of course you try to make the farcical argument that they were somehow fooled by Bush before he even became President.

The FACTS are obvious to those not engaging in hyperbolic and the emotional hysterics of hyper partisan political rhetoric in a vacuum of the facts and events as they unfolded.

The REAL truth here Lerxst is that you willingly wallow in this type of factual flagellation because of your misplaced hatred of a man for the politically partisan reasons and the idiotic notion that he somehow stole an election in 2000. It would be refreshing if for ONCE in your life you could be honest.

Click to expand...

The Jovial One said:

Wow. You listed a bunch of quotes from the Clinton administration explaining why we couldn't allow Saddam to have WMDs as rationale for believing the lie that he HAD WMDs.

Fail.

Click to expand...