The Truth about Iraq's WMD
TonyZ2001
"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 a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001
"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
mandated 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
R. Foreman
> Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
>
>
> "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
That's an understatement. He was launching missiles on an almost
daily basis at our pilots patroling the no-fly zone. For this
reason alone I think we were right to take hussein out.
> "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...
Another understatement. Stormin Norman in gulf war I said in
looking back, when trying to predict the enemy's actions, if they
had chosen the stupidest possible thing hussein could do, they
would have been right 100% of the time.
Werewolfy
> Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
Yawwwwwn. Gosh but that was an exciting post.
Ricky
================================================================================
Daar...@everywhere.com
>Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
snip the bullshit
Hahahahah still grabbing at that straw eh pantyboy? Can't you get it
through your pea-brain that they don't have WMD's?
Not Important
to fly over Iraq.
--
Jim Scannell
jsca...@wi.rr.com
http://home.wi.rr.com/jscannell/
(Your link on things that are truly important)
"R. Foreman" <eid...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94573F3A769F8rr...@63.240.76.16...
Not Important
when we KNEW they didn't have any? That's what I got from your list of
quotes. The Bush administration KNEW they were lying and somehow thought
they'd get away with it.
--
Jim Scannell
jsca...@wi.rr.com
http://home.wi.rr.com/jscannell/
(Your link on things that are truly important)
"TonyZ2001" <tony...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031220033825...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Dani
wrote:
>tony...@aol.com (TonyZ2001) wrote in message news:<20031220033825...@mb-m15.aol.com>...
>> Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
>================================================================================
>Yawwwwwn. Gosh but that was an exciting post.
Hehe! .. ;)
>Ricky
>================================================================================
jha_amin
> So you admit that the U.S. attacked Iraq, using the excuse that they had WMD
> when we KNEW they didn't have any? That's what I got from your list of
> quotes. The Bush administration KNEW they were lying and somehow thought
> they'd get away with it.
> --
>
And they did get away with it!
Michael Johnathan McDonald
> Hehe! .. ;)
Hi Dani,
Which statement do you believe more?
'We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program' - Bill Clinton
or
'We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program' - George Bush
R. Foreman
> I think Iraq was justified at shooting at planes that they didn't
> authorize to fly over Iraq.
> --
Yes, well, the rest of the world (via the UN) thought differently,
which was why we were there flying that patrol zone in the first
place. Hence the origins of the conflict; hussein's Iraq vs the
rest of the world.
WH
"R. Foreman" <eid...@anti-spam.comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns9457C6EE597FFrr...@216.148.227.77...
> "Not Important" <som...@here.yea> Spat the Words
>
> > I think Iraq was justified at shooting at planes that they didn't
> > authorize to fly over Iraq.
> > --
>
> Yes, well, the rest of the world (via the UN) thought differently,
> which was why we were there flying that patrol zone in the first
> place.
Eehh the seppo's and the brits...rest of the world NO (via the UN). Seppos
and brits tookj it upon themselves to find a "no fly zone" Not the UN.
WH
Eric Rodgers
honest, especially Bill Clinton.
"TonyZ2001" <tony...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031220033825...@mb-m15.aol.com...
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>Yawwwwwn. Gosh but that was an >exciting post.
Maybe you should stop being so exciting and try reading up on the truth Ricky.
Tony
"Sometimes we don't need History at all."
Dani
TonyZ2001
wrote:
Come on Michael, you;'re asking the poor girl to think, do you want to give her
a headache?
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>So you admit that the U.S. attacked Iraq, using the excuse that they had WMD
>when we KNEW they didn't have any? >That's what I got from your list of
>quotes.
If that's what you got from reading those quotes, then you are a world class
pinhead.
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>I guess by quoting all these democrats >you believe they are truthful and
>honest, especially Bill Clinton.
What it proves is that there was/is a consensus that Iraq had/has WMD. A
consensus that is now completely ignored by the Left Wing.
R. Foreman
>>Eric Rodgers" ><rodger...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I guess by quoting all these democrats >you believe they are truthful and
>>honest, especially Bill Clinton.
>
> What it proves is that there was/is a consensus that Iraq had/has WMD. A
> consensus that is now completely ignored by the Left Wing.
I'm not sure that's true. A lot of prominent democrats voted
for going into iraq. I think it was the right thing to do,
and I don't like Bush very much.
Just goes to show, you can't generalize too much or you
miss the mark.
Not Important
> >"Not Important" som...@here.yea
> wrote:
>
> >So you admit that the U.S. attacked Iraq, using the excuse that they had
WMD
> >when we KNEW they didn't have any? >That's what I got from your list of
> >quotes.
>
> If that's what you got from reading those quotes, then you are a world
class
> pinhead.
Perhaps you should re-read them from my perspective to see that it fits.
Dani
Johnathan McDonald) wrote:
>Dani <dani...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<48t8uvclf23d5q1un...@4ax.com>...
>Hi Dani,
Hey Mike.
>Which statement do you believe more?
>'We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction program' - Bill Clinton
>or
>'We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction program' - George Bush
I find it hard to believe that there even *is* any WMD in Iraq.
So neither.
I did support Bush at one point.. but when he decided to attack Iraq
for "supposed" WMD's (no solid proof) - and the attention was switched
from Bin to Saddam all of a sudden.. I began to question. But now
that no WMD has been found - it sickens me to the core that our young
men and women were sent to suffer and die over a lie. And all the
Iraqi civilians that have also suffered.
Now don't get me wrong; I know Saddam is a monster and I'm thrilled
that he can't torture his people anymore.. but *originally* the war
was about Saddam's WMD - not the liberation of the Iraqi people.
I dunno - 2+2 doesn't quite seem to be making 4 here.
Now a question for you: Do you still believe Iraq has WMD?
Dani
WH
"Dani" <dani...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:83feuv4v54nfti8ae...@4ax.com...
It's more than that Dani. It's that the yankies have attacked a soverign
nation,
in this case to secure the oil, without the world stopping them. Of course
using the lie that Iraq had WMD which they didn't. They've set a precedence.
<<==sp and what does it mean?
They got away with it. Now they're using the excuse that Saddam was a
ruthless dictator. Which is true but they helped to
put him there in the first place. The world is full of ruthless dictators.
Most of whom are friends of the seppo's. As long
as they are friends then it's ok. That was the case with Saddam. The shah of
Iran is another example as are most of
the biggest monsters of South and Middle America.
They seem to have gotten away with this....in Iraq. Who is to say that they
won't attack some other soverign nation after this?
That's the point. They want something and seeing as they are the only
"superpower" then the world has nothing
to say about it. That's the problem. It's not simply Iraq but it's the
consequences of them getting away with it.
WH
R. Foreman
Sorry Dani, I know you're not talking to me but I have to
respond to this.
Technically it was about violation of UN resolutions and
the UN's incapacity to act in a unified manner (and also a
little bit about Bush's inability to draw any allies to
our side).
The wmd thing, well, that's probably what convinced our congress
(both senate and house of reps) to vote by about a 2/3 majority
for going to war. I think many of the details the congress saw
were not made public; probably classified information.
I think the alternative to going to war now was waiting for
the inevitable, saddam or one of his sicko sons finally gets
the bomb. Then it would be nearly impossible to take him out.
If you think 500 dead US soldiers is hard to stomach, try to
imagine 100,000 US soldiers dying in an instant by a nuclear blast.
Mark Tyme
The "classified information" was later discredited as bogus.
The US knew Iraq had no WMD, otherwise, it never would
have sent 250,000 grounds forces into the country to face
those WMD.
R. Foreman
>>>
>>> Now a question for you: Do you still believe Iraq has WMD?
>>>
>>> Dani
>
>
> The "classified information" was later discredited as bogus.
>
> The US knew Iraq had no WMD, otherwise, it never would
> have sent 250,000 grounds forces into the country to face
> those WMD.
I think at the time we went in we were reasonably sure hussein
did not have the bomb. If he did have the bomb we would've done
things very differently or not gone in at all. Who wants to see
your entire army get blown up in the desert?
As for other wmd, there was tons of that stuff unaccounted
for when the weapons inspectors got kicked out in 1998. Some
of that stuff is so lethal, like vx nerve agent, it often
kills the handler before he ever reaches the victim.
I agree, chemical artillery shells are only so effective
against a modern, well prepared army.