To those who claim the Bush administration lied about WMD's

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Even if Bush was incorrect, the belief that Saddam had WMD's was shared by almost all the democrats as well. And this belief was based, not upon intelligence gathered during the Bush adminstration, but upon intelligence gathered and documented during the CLINTON administration.
If Bush was lying, then so were Clinton and the rest of the democrats. Note that many of the dates precede the inauguration of Bush.

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam?s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq?s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Great post. I wonder where all the "it's Bush's fault!" and "Bush is a liar!" fanatics are...

*BUMP*
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,429
4,812
126
Well, Scott Ritter for one, had since made quite the opposite statement as quoted. He basically said that Iraqi WMDs were no more.

Part of the problem with old Inteligence is that certain Chem/Bio weapons have a short shelf-life. So, even if Saddam had some WMD at the end of 1998, they may have expired a long time ago. Another problem with the whole "we didn't know" arguement is that there were UN Inspectors back on the ground after many years of absence. There were plenty of instances when red flags went up during the renewed Inspection process, those Red Flags signalling Bad, Outdated, or just Wrong Intelligence. Numerous times the bush Admin claimed that "Here" or "There" signs of a renewed Program existed. Each one of them proved to be False. Not one claim has been verified even after gaining full control, so even if the Intelligence seemed legit, it obvious was not which leaves just 2 explanations: 1) Either the Bush Admin was too scared to read the writing on the Wall or 2) They had no intentions of not Invading Iraq, they just needed an excuse to offer up to the Public.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Well, Scott Ritter for one, had since made quite the opposite statement as quoted. He basically said that Iraqi WMDs were no more.

Part of the problem with old Inteligence is that certain Chem/Bio weapons have a short shelf-life. So, even if Saddam had some WMD at the end of 1998, they may have expired a long time ago. Another problem with the whole "we didn't know" arguement is that there were UN Inspectors back on the ground after many years of absence. There were plenty of instances when red flags went up during the renewed Inspection process, those Red Flags signalling Bad, Outdated, or just Wrong Intelligence. Numerous times the bush Admin claimed that "Here" or "There" signs of a renewed Program existed. Each one of them proved to be False. Not one claim has been verified even after gaining full control, so even if the Intelligence seemed legit, it obvious was not which leaves just 2 explanations: 1) Either the Bush Admin was too scared to read the writing on the Wall or 2) They had no intentions of not Invading Iraq, they just needed an excuse to offer up to the Public.
Wouldn't that make Scott Ritter a LIAR??


Seriously though, didn't the inspectors on the ground run into resistance even this last time?
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,805
504
126
That is why once the inspectors were back at work, they should have been given all the time they needed...... but if you insist in seeing the action as "right" nothing will convince you of the opposite.....

For those who said Iraq was not cooperating, he was graded as B.... that means it can improve, but WAY different of "no cooperation"...... As I said, if you insist in seeing it right, your choice....
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Well, Scott Ritter for one, had since made quite the opposite statement as quoted. He basically said that Iraqi WMDs were no more.
Ritters statements do nothing but discredit Ritter. He made the first statements right after being on an inspection. He later contradicted himself after years of not being on an inspection team. Which time did he lie?

Shanti I won't quote your entire post but I will only say that yep that's a lot of "proof" but the only thing missing now is the weapons themselves.

 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
BINGO. Let's wait and see.
But apparently the administration has given up looking . . . at the very least . . . finding WMD is not a priority.
I think they want to stablize Iraq first. I guess they feel that people are more important than proving that the intelligence they had was correct. Imagine that.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,429
4,812
126
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: sandorski
Well, Scott Ritter for one, had since made quite the opposite statement as quoted. He basically said that Iraqi WMDs were no more.

Part of the problem with old Inteligence is that certain Chem/Bio weapons have a short shelf-life. So, even if Saddam had some WMD at the end of 1998, they may have expired a long time ago. Another problem with the whole "we didn't know" arguement is that there were UN Inspectors back on the ground after many years of absence. There were plenty of instances when red flags went up during the renewed Inspection process, those Red Flags signalling Bad, Outdated, or just Wrong Intelligence. Numerous times the bush Admin claimed that "Here" or "There" signs of a renewed Program existed. Each one of them proved to be False. Not one claim has been verified even after gaining full control, so even if the Intelligence seemed legit, it obvious was not which leaves just 2 explanations: 1) Either the Bush Admin was too scared to read the writing on the Wall or 2) They had no intentions of not Invading Iraq, they just needed an excuse to offer up to the Public.
Wouldn't that make Scott Ritter a LIAR??


Seriously though, didn't the inspectors on the ground run into resistance even this last time?
No, as I said, some WMD have a short shelf life. So far his latter claim appears to have been correct.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: miguel
Great post. I wonder where all the "it's Bush's fault!" and "Bush is a liar!" fanatics are...

*BUMP*
So you two declare unequivalically that there is still WMD buried and hidden in Iraq? Are you two going to go over there, find them and point them out for the rest of the world to see?


 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: miguel
Great post. I wonder where all the "it's Bush's fault!" and "Bush is a liar!" fanatics are...

*BUMP*
So you two declare unequivalically that there is still WMD buried and hidden in Iraq? Are you two going to go over there, find them and point them out for the rest of the world to see?
Reading is a skill that most people take for granted. You ought to try reading a little bit more, or at least more carefully.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: miguel
Great post. I wonder where all the "it's Bush's fault!" and "Bush is a liar!" fanatics are...

*BUMP*
So you two declare unequivalically that there is still WMD buried and hidden in Iraq? Are you two going to go over there, find them and point them out for the rest of the world to see?
I never said that.
I'll reserve judgement but so far it does look like the intelligence was wrong.
I simply stated that if Bush knowingly lied about knowing their were WMD's, then so did all the democrats, because they all said the same thing. And they said it, not based only on the intelligence and evidence presented by the Bush administration, but primarily based on intelligence that was gathered during the Clinton administration.

If it was all just fabrication and lies, then Clinton and the democrats must have been in on the conspiracy too.
It makes the claims that Bush made all this stuff up simply ridiculous.

Hey, I've got a conspiracy theory for you:
Maybe the Clinton administration fabricated all this intelligence because they knew the next Republican administration would use this information to justify invading Iraq. This way, Clinton thought they could embarass the Republicans and guarantee a Democrat would get elected following Bush.;)
EDIT: I'm joking of course.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: Shanti

Hey, I've got a conspiracy theory for you:
Maybe the Clinton administration fabricated all this intelligence because they knew the next Republican administration would use this information to justify invading Iraq. This way, Clinton thought they could embarass the Republicans and guarantee a Democrat would get elected following Bush.;)
My head hurts...
 
D

Deleted member 4644

It was only shared by democrats because the ADMINISTRATION and its AGENCIES SAID HE HAD WMD.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: LordSegan
It was only shared by democrats because the ADMINISTRATION and its AGENCIES SAID HE HAD WMD.
Yes, the CLINTON administration and it's agencies.

"the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Clinton was still in office in 1998.
Hmmm, most of the democrats now say that Iraq destroyed all their weapons immediately following the first gulf war (92,93)
 
D

Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: LordSegan
It was only shared by democrats because the ADMINISTRATION and its AGENCIES SAID HE HAD WMD.
Yes, the CLINTON administration and it's agencies.

"the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Clinton was still in office in 1998.
Hmmm, most of the democrats now say that Iraq destroyed all their weapons immediately following the first gulf war (92,93)
Hmmm ok, good point. Still, Bush had a lot of time to get new info. Also, Clinton didnt get us in a war over it. (I actually dont think the war was that terrible, but I dont fully support it either.. go figure)
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Look, I'm not saying Bush is perfect. I'm not saying that their weren't intelligence failures during the Bush administration prior to 9/11 and prior to Iraq.
All I'm saying is that those people claiming that this was a "false war" based on Bush's lies about WMD are wrong.
Was the intelligence about WMD's wrong?
Sure looks like it right now.

Was it all just made up by Bush and company as many people claim?
Of course not.

The majority of the intelligence used to justify the war came from the Clinton administration.
Clinton and the democrats reached the same, apparently incorrect, conclusion's about Saddam's WMD's and WMD programs.

If the democrats were fooled by lies as they say now, then Clinton played just as big a part in doing the fooling as Bush.

EDIT: And to those who think the idea of Saddam giving WMD's to terrorists was just a Bush scare tactic, remember, Clinton said it first.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: LordSeganHmmm ok, good point. Still, Bush had a lot of time to get new info. Also, Clinton didnt get us in a war over it. (I actually dont think the war was that terrible, but I dont fully support it either.. go figure)
Stating the obvious, there buddy. So, what's the point? Because Clinton didn't invade Afghanistan, it makes Bush a liar about WMDs? What's the point? What's the point of discussing this. This is like trying to convince a muslim to take communion.
 
D

Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: LordSeganHmmm ok, good point. Still, Bush had a lot of time to get new info. Also, Clinton didnt get us in a war over it. (I actually dont think the war was that terrible, but I dont fully support it either.. go figure)
Stating the obvious, there buddy. So, what's the point? Because Clinton didn't invade Afghanistan, it makes Bush a liar about WMDs? What's the point? What's the point of discussing this. This is like trying to convince a muslim to take communion.
LOL.

Well, I think the discussion is good. There are too many extremists on all sides. Some people (not necessarily here) try to support Bush at any cost. Other people try to lynch him.

Im sure Bush had the best interests of the US in mind when he attacked Iraq. And thus far, there have been no major attacks since 9/11 and I give him a lot of credit on that. Still, its important to look at all the facts.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: LordSegan

LOL.

Well, I think the discussion is good. There are too many extremists on all sides. Some people (not necessarily here) try to support Bush at any cost. Other people try to lynch him.

Im sure Bush had the best interests of the US in mind when he attacked Iraq. And thus far, there have been no major attacks since 9/11 and I give him a lot of credit on that. Still, its important to look at all the facts.
True. There are also those in the middle area who just want the facts, like you said.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Part of the problem with old Inteligence is that certain Chem/Bio weapons have a short shelf-life. So, even if Saddam had some WMD at the end of 1998, they may have expired a long time ago.
"Iraq has tried to solve this problem in two ways. First, it attempted, with foreign assistance, to improve the shelf-life of its unitary sarin by increasing, the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and-refining production processes.

Second, it began to develop binary chemical weapons. In a binary munition, the two precursor chemicals are stored separately and only mixed to form the chemical agent immediately before or when the round is in flight. Thus, the shelf life of the agent becomes irrelevant; moreover, the munition is safer to handle and store. By 1990 iraq had successfully tested 155-mm artillery shells and other binary munitions and launched a ballistic missile with a binary warhead as well.

CIA holds that the stocks of sarin may remain viable well beyond march. CIA analysts believe that the shelf life problem was only temporary and that the iraqis can now produce unitary agents of sufficient quality by adding a stabilizer or improving the production process.

CIA also believes that a substantial portion of iraq's nerve agent stockpile now consists of binary chemical weapons which would not be subject to degradation."
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,429
4,812
126
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: sandorski
Part of the problem with old Inteligence is that certain Chem/Bio weapons have a short shelf-life. So, even if Saddam had some WMD at the end of 1998, they may have expired a long time ago.
"Iraq has tried to solve this problem in two ways. First, it attempted, with foreign assistance, to improve the shelf-life of its unitary sarin by increasing, the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and-refining production processes.

Second, it began to develop binary chemical weapons. In a binary munition, the two precursor chemicals are stored separately and only mixed to form the chemical agent immediately before or when the round is in flight. Thus, the shelf life of the agent becomes irrelevant; moreover, the munition is safer to handle and store. By 1990 iraq had successfully tested 155-mm artillery shells and other binary munitions and launched a ballistic missile with a binary warhead as well.

CIA holds that the stocks of sarin may remain viable well beyond march. CIA analysts believe that the shelf life problem was only temporary and that the iraqis can now produce unitary agents of sufficient quality by adding a stabilizer or improving the production process.

CIA also believes that a substantial portion of iraq's nerve agent stockpile now consists of binary chemical weapons which would not be subject to degradation."
The CIA seems to "believe" a lot of things. The renewed UN Inspection process should have been used to prove or disprove those "beliefs".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY