in fairness to the republicans read what democrats said...

[Rev9Volts]

Famous quotes on Iraq, Saddam, and WMD....





"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 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 elicit 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 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 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."



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

[ktxtenn]

Read these again! There are now clearly NO IRAQI WMD, so obviously what Clinton was doing up until at least Oct. 1998 was **effective** (if not all the way up until the end of his term). And, once Clinton was out of office and GWB in charge, he and his administration controlled access to Iraqi WMD info here--out of which Bush made a war and Clinton worked with the inspections. And under Bush now Saddam is still at large and our men and women are dying every day for WMD that Clinton was evidently quite good at preventing during *his* watch in the White House.



All these quotes say to me is that Clinton's anti-WMD work was effective and Bush misled both the Congress (Dems *and* Reps) and the U.S. public just as well.



infoQuote by quote, we go:



"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 --AND WE MET THE BOTTOM LINE.



"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 --AND WE DIDN'T NEED TO, BECAUSE WE MET CLINTON'S BOTTOM LINE.



"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 --AND CLINTON TOOK THAT SERIOUSLY AND MADE SURE SADDAM DIDN'T DO IT.





"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 --GUESS WHAT? CLINTON DID SUCH A GOOD JOB, SADDAM DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO DO THAT.





"[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 --AND CLINTON DIDN'T NEED TO, AS INSPECTIONS WERE WORKING.



"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 --WELL, NANCY MAY BE ONE QUOTE TO WORRY ABOUT .



"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 --AND THE PALACES EVIDENTLY WERE EASIER TO BUILD THAN WMD. INSPECTIONS HAD A LOT TO DO WITH THAT.



"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 elicit 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 --BOY, ISN'T THAT FUNNY THAT THEY WERE MISLED ABOUT THE "WHY OF THIS WAR" BY THE SAME ADMINISTRATION THAT THE PUBLIC WAS. REMEMBER, CLINTON DIDN'T GO TO WAR--HE RELIED ON INSPECTIONS.



"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 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.





"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT



"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 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT





"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 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.







"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 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.



"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 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.



"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 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.





"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 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.



"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 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.





"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 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.





"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 --SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.

[DreamTone7]

"Read these again! There are now clearly NO IRAQI WMD"



Hmmm.....I see.



When you were a kid and wanted to hide something from your parents, what did you do? Take it to your friends house!



Syria has been the middle-man for selling Iraqs oil, Syria has harbored political fugitives since the outbreak of hostilities.....2 + 2 still equals 4 where I come from, so go figure.



Is Syria hiding Sadams WMD for him? I don't know for sure....but the possibility is too great (IMHO) to simply say that there never were any WMD. What are the odds that a paranoid Sadam used up all of his WMD (that he obviously at one point had) on his own people. I'd say slim to nil.

[ktxtenn]

In which case these quotes are STILL nothing to be ashamed of. Either the WMD development was curtailed by the inspections under Clinton's eye all those years, or Bush announced an upcoming war and let Saddam sneak the WMD to Syria under his.

[NRKofOver]

I recently saw an interview with Colin Powell's former head of intelligence and what he said disturbed me quite deeply.



Essentially, Powell's address to the UN (and if you pay attention, his approach changed over night, from moderation and patience, to attack now), was full of misconceptions, exaggerations and even outright lies. And that is coming from the guy who was in charge of chasing down all information about Iraq and their weapons. In this same show, they talked to two weapons inspectors and every time the US pushed the inspectors to a particular location, which was supposedly weapons sites based on satellite imagery and informants, the sites were nothing.



It disturbs me that anyone believes that Saddam has somehow hidden what the administration said were tons and tons of weapons. Not a minute amount, but tons. They even said that Iraq had Scuds, which was one of those complete lies based on absolutely nothing, and those haven't been found either.



Saddam was a very very bad man. No question. It's good that he's gone. It's terrible that our leaders lied to us to achieve what appears to be personal goals. In a democracy we are entitled to the truth, in fact, a democracy without an informed populace is no better than China.



Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job, and this administration is continually supported in their lies even though it is completely clear they were far from truthful.



Shame on them and shame on the people who don't admonish such behavior.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

NRK - "It disturbs me that anyone believes that Saddam has somehow hidden what the administration said were tons and tons of weapons."



Then you must believe he used up every single cannister of gas, every last Scud, and every last ______ (you fill it in) that he ever had. Things just don't dissappear....and his use of the mentioned devices is well known. As for what I believe, you may consider yourself officially disturbed.



NRK - "Saddam was a very very bad man. No question. It's good that he's gone."



Now his being gone is something I have a hard time believeing. I think he's still out there....and with the $ he has, there will always be some shifty government that will look the other way when he comes around. I will never understand why Bush Sr. let him off the hook the last time around. Now it's going to be tough to find him.....and his WMD.

[ktxtenn]

The great lies of this war were that the Iraqi people would welcome the U.S. troops with open arms and that WMD were just on the verge of being used and were developing like weeds.



Well, the Iraqi folks are shooting at us, still, and they are not turning in Saddam. And *not a single* WMD has been found.



Saddam's military was so inefficient that we conquered them in about the time it took us to drive the tanks to Baghdad. And yet they somehow hid tons of WMD, and hide them, still? By the way, we captured many of our "55" deck, including "Chemical Ali"--it seems we would have SOME info by now on locating WMD.



At least ONE.



K

[NRKofOver]

Iraq was under UN mandate to destroy their weapons. I don't live in Iraq and have never been there, and have heard very little about any weapons destruction programs, so I don't know if they were destroyed or not. Maybe they were just buried, who knows, but they obvioulsy weren't aimed at Israel ready to be shot on a seconds notice. If they were, weapons inspectors would've found something, and they found absolutely nothing.



It seems that Saddam was far from an 'immenent threat' to the US or his neighbors and that is the reason we invaded. I don't think he was and that's why I didn't support the war.



There is entirely too much evidence to show that this administration deliberately misled the public about the threat and about weapons and that's just wrong.



Saddam is gone from Iraq, he won't get that country back. I don't even think he's much into global power, I think he's into personal power for personal gain (the palaces and boats and airplanes). He obviously cannot have any legitimate place in any government ever again. And he's old, he'll die soon whether we kill him or not.



As far as the Iraqi's welcoming us, ktx, I think it's important to have a balanced look at Iraq. Many many people in the country are working well with the US military (mostly in the southern parts of the country) to build schools, to establish local governments, to rebuild the infrastructure and that is often lost in our media reports. There are definitely problems with anti-American forces in Iraq, and maybe that won't stop until we're gone. Maybe when we leave the country will fall into chaos and become a fundamentalist Islamic nation like Iran. Maybe the fighting will stop and a democracy will emerge. It's too tough to really know what the outcome will be.



I didn't support the war, but we went, and now I hope for the best. I hope Iraq becomes a nation ruled by the Iraqi people and that the people can finally benefit from their own economic abilities after decades of being raped by their own leaders. There are a lot of things about Iraq that bother me (like the contracts being given to too many Americans and not enough Iraqis) but ultimately I hope for the best.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[ktxtenn]

I think there is frankly too much made of supposed media "negativity" around Iraq--after all, really, it was media "POSITIVITY" about expecting a quick end and WMD discovery that helped lead us into this war!



Hoping for the best is one thing, but spending $87 billion to create a democracy that NONE of the powerful Iraq/Middle Eastern religious factions want is folly. We've armed what are essentially feudal oligarchies in the region for the last 80 years, and none of them--including the Saudis--are about to let us change that power base, invasion or not.



Viewed in the dreamy hopes of the future of a happy, democratic Iraq, our war seems at heart a good effort; viewed in the reality of the thousand years' history of the region, it is yet just one more Christian Crusade--only this prize isn't a carpenter's cup, it's the oil under the ground.



K

[NRKofOver]

KTX, I agree with your assertion about the 'negative' media. I don't believe they are intentionally or deliberatly negative. Honestly, what is more newsworthy, a car bomb killing 4 Americans and 10 Iraqis or water being turned on (which is expected)? I didn't intend to suggest that the media is being negative, I only wanted to express that progress does exist in some parts of the country and that's not very well known because people dying makes it difficult to focus on the expected.



As well, the complexities of the region make it difficult to assume the best (although I still like to hope, haha). We essentially have a president who believes he can undo a century of questionable foreign policy in the Middle East with one simple invasion. He is a moron, but we're kind of stuck with him for a bit longer, .



And I'm not sure that oil is as big a factor as once thought by the more left leaning people. It's obviously important, but there is such scrutiny about American's behavior that even if oil was the original intention, it's going to be very difficult to benefit directly from Iraqi oil. But I would expect typical kickbacks, payoffs, and general corruption that exists in every oil nation with some Americans benefitting quite well.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[ktxtenn]

Don't discount the oil angle just yet--it is arguable that this war became necessary because the oil supply was finally deemed too critical to leave in the hands of all the volatile countries of the region. Saddam was just too good of a war rally opportunity to pass up--which, from the U.S. point of view, makes a lot more sense now that the WMDs aren't being found. Oil is also a great trading card to get French and German cooperation after the fact.



Scrutiny hasn't led to any unbearable situations for Bush's administration--they seem to have been able to make up a war in broad daylight. I don't think scrutiny will make much difference in the oil situation, either, but I hope so.



K