� Just Makes You Wince | Main | In The Can �
October 15, 2004
In Case You Haven't Heard
This is coming around in email so you may have seen it before. I just wanted to get it up on the blog.
"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
"We 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 (D-MI), Tom
Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), 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 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 an illicit 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
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
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
"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
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapon 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."
- 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
Posted by mbowen at October 15, 2004 11:50 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.visioncircle.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2678
Comments
I don't get the point of this. All it shows is that he's always been consistent in saying Saddam's a threat.
The beef is about how you choose to respond to that threat -- the wisest course considering all options available and all the various issues to tackle.
Launching a war on Saddam at that time was a bad idea. Add to that the continuing domino line of heinous mistakes to date should all suggest a change in leadership is in order. He's not the man to be at the helm at this time in history.
Kerry's the better man to correct this sinkhole.
Posted by: memer at October 15, 2004 12:47 PM
memer,I got mad respect for ya,but you are wrong on this man. All the options were considered for years. Enough is enough. He had to go,we need a shake up in the middle east. Appeasement and meaningless dialogue were no longer worth the risk. The war is only a bad idea for the french,russians and chinese. Our security should come before the back door deals and kickbacks of the UN. Kerry can only make this situation worse for this country,but he can make it better for the marxist in europe,who had so much to gain by having this tyrant pose a threat to America,since they are hoping for our demise also. mem,I wonder if you were also this vociferous about clinton's war in Bosnia?
Posted by: Eric at October 15, 2004 03:42 PM
Hey, E. Wuddup. Again, there is no argument about the benefits of getting rid of Saddam. I repeat, there is no argument about the benefits of getting rid of Saddam.
The question is HOW. And, to a lesser degree, WHEN.
We have a difference in opinion on whether or not launching a war on him at that time was the best thing to ask congress for gatrillions of $$ for. We differ, considering it's a war with many fronts and priorities, on whether launching a war on Saddam was the highest priority with the greatest differential between (perceived) potential gains and drawbacks.
It's a question of strategy. We see now that the strategy as implemented to date was massively flawed. Worse, it's just far too easy to make the case that Bush launched the war on Saddam for political reasons (he thot it'd be an easy takeout), just like Conservatives were screamin an hollerin when Clinton ordered strikes on Saddam purportedly to distract us from LewLew (yeah, so what were you sayin then, Eric? ;-).
That's the global cheese test Kerry was talking about (re preemptive war).
Re Bosnia, there was far more international support. That's the model. Clinton's.
Posted by: memer at October 15, 2004 04:44 PM
I say again, Saadam signed his death warrant when he gave money to the families of terrorists who blew themselves up in Israel.
People say the intellegence was faultly. No one seems to ask if the intellegence that was gathered by many countries, comes from one source.
Posted by: DarkStar at October 15, 2004 05:38 PM
Thank you, kind sir, for the reminder.
Talk, not actually *doing* anything was to supposed to mean something to these folks. Guess they thought the yammering would make the evil-doers cease and desist.
Posted by: Juliette at October 15, 2004 08:10 PM
But it DID mean something.
Quick question--where were the weapons?
Now one thing that was SUPPOSED to mean something was getting rid of Saddam. The US troops would be greated as liberators.
LIBERATORS.
NO ONE SPEAKS THE LANGUAGE. NO ONE EVEN LOOKS LIKE THEM. THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF ANTI-US SENTIMENT.
And we're supposed to be greeted as "liberators."
These are the adults in charge? Can someone come up with a verifiable hypotheses that these guys made that has been borne out by FACT?
Posted by: Lester K. Spence at October 16, 2004 09:36 AM
Mr. Spence:
If nothing else, mbowen's post of clinton administration information is given to show that gw did not lie. Everyone thought Saddam was a threat with weapons of mass destruction. After nine years of sanctions, one more U.N. resolution saying 'this is your last warning', and finally two years of coalition building - maybe, just maybe, there was some justification in taking the next step.
PDN
Posted by: PDN at October 17, 2004 06:06 PM