"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 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 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.
And Clinton did, successfully, and destroyed Saddam's WMD capacity at a fraction of the time and cost of the current fiasco. What is the point of this thread?
He had done it, he wasn't sure he had done it, and he didn't trust Saddam to tell the truth. That's where the inspectors come into play. Too bad they weren't allowed to continue with their work there.
Where are the dumb a$$ Bush quotes, where he consistently mentions their WMDs? I prefer the "not sending in our military" approach. DD
This is so tired. I was for disarming him Saddam, for deposing him. I believed the neocon ideas that reconstruction would be easy and the whole Domino Effect in the middle east. It was all so... wrong. We were lied to, repeatedly, to garner our support. They could have done far, far more before deploying the military but had already decided that's how they would do it. There's so much that is so wrong about how this was started, and how it has been run since... No amount of quotes from dems saying there are WMD's and Saddam must be dealt with will change that. Why am I even bothering typing this? This war has gone on how many years, the atrocities only pile up, the evidence of the administration's "exaggerations" pile up, terrorists have a massive new front and training ground and population of America haters to draw from... but I still have to read a bunch of old quotes from Dems about how Saddam was a bad person from basso. Yes, basso, all those old quotes justify how the war was sold, how it was justified, how it was planned, how it was executed... Clinton's words cement it. I'll tell you what. I really think that the admin meant well. They really thought they were doing the right thing, that lying to us was necessary to get over there and get the job done and over with. But that's the best I can give.
Really meant well? How so? What was the U.S trying to accomplish? There has to be a satisfactory explanation for bombing another country (or ‘invading’). There are people who live there just like us, they deserve a better explanation (the truth; people got killed, approximately 35,000(since 2003)…they deserve it). To liberate the people from a tyrant is obviously untrue. Since there are so many other countries with equally atrocious individuals (parties) running their respective nations. Why does Iraq deserve this special treatment after so many years? I’m a peace nut, so I believe if a war is to take place there has to be an explanation for it (has to be clear cut). The whole world has gotten many different explanations from the U.S, it seems it changes every few months or so. It should be clearer. I know most would say it was because he invaded Kuwait, but then why wasn’t he taken out then? Many, many people died from the embargos that were placed on that nation, it basically had the greatest affect on the poor. Saddam obviously didn’t care for his people(or the economy) as long as he stayed in power, why would you place an embargo for so many years and then after a decade all of a sudden decide it’s time to take him out? Just doesn’t really make any sense to me.
Well, this puts me in the odd position of what feels like defending an administration that I think is a miserable failure in most respects. But I'm just going to give my impression. I really do think that all the guys in the Pact for a New American Century really thought they'd make the world a better place. The war would be quick and easy with minimum casualties, only a small quick force would be necessary, Iraq has enough infrastructure for immediate funding of rebuilding, the society was ready to accept secular democracy, and they would welcome the American forces as liberators with love and flowers. But that would only be the beginning- a new, economically thriving, socially forward looking secular democracy smack in the middle east would serve as a beacon of freedom to the surrounding countries, starting a 'domino effect.' This is all of course a complete joke in hindsight, but at the time, I'm a little embarrassed to say- I believed it too. I thought it would work. I knew that Bush was disigenuous about really finding the WMD with inspectors; I knew he just wanted to get in there and overthrow the government and get the whole PNAC party started. And I wanted it to work, I wanted it to be true. At the time I figured the ends justified the means. And I was wrong. There are actually some pretty embarrassing posts I put up during the war- one actually made it (shudder) into TJ's sig. God, I shiver to think it now. But at least I was able to recognize that I was wrong- and not because they didn't find WMD. Because the ends don't justify the means. It's not okay to bend the truth in order to sell a war, to take advantage of 9/11 emotions to sell a war. It's not okay to use the military, death, destruction, and warfare as the first option. It's not okay to start a war to forward a principle of how human beings should live. It's wrong to force a beacon of freedom upon a nation at the point of a gun- and then hypocritically turn upon the ideals of democracy and human rights by admonishing torture and harboring dictatorial power. If we can only lead by force, and not example, who are we? And I haven't even gotten to the horrible planning of the war, for which there is no excuse when the advice of the military was adamant on every level, and was ignored. Or the irony that this 'war on terror' has aided terrorists, and their cause. I believe the administration is arrogant, power-hungry and hypocritical to the extreme. But I do believe that they thought they were going to make the world a better place. The cost of their misguided failure is great cost upon all of us, in many corners of the world. Had they truly believed in the ideals of democracy, perhaps they would respect the voices of others with opinions and worldviews outside thiers. Or at least believe that when most of the Pentagon tells you to double the force, maybe they know what they're talking about.
I agree with almost everything you said. good post. My brother's best friend who used to live here in Canada moved to Iraq about two months ago to be with his Mom and Dad in Iraq. He joined an American company doing some project over there; he wanted to help rebuild Iraq (He took his wife and two kids also, he was very optimistic). He called about a week ago crying to my brother about blood shed everywhere, people dying left and right. This is a guy who literally fought against Saddam(tried to over throw his party) and was threatened to leave the country or face the death of his whole family (thus, his move to Canada). He did not cry then but he’s in tears now. It’s just sad to see a country in such despair; it should have been done another way. That’s my only point; I agree Saddam had to be removed, though it should have been done by some Muslim ally’s of the U.S. That’s just my opinion.
Nolen, You are really to be commended on such an honest post. It is hard to admit when you're wrong, especially about something like this. I think if most current or former supporters of the war were really honest they would acknowledge this. And it is one of the most important aspects of this whole debacle. Even if your intentions are good, even if you are trying to overthrow Saddam because you really want to install a democracy in Iraq and you think this will make the world safer, it's not okay to mislead and manipulate the U.S. public about the threat they face and the difficulty of the mission, to trick them into supporting an invasion. This is so incredibly corrosive to our democratic institutions and ideal.
we're at war at war with terrorism... racism but most of all we're at war with ourselves! -Jesus Walks
Basso...at long last, is this all you have left? I guess the reality of the current fiasco in Iraq, with all of the American and Iraqi blood your beloved George W. has on his hands, is just too much for you to handle.
By the way, haven't we had done this already? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=109686&highlight=democrat+iraq I'll stand on my post from the first thread.
yawn Everybody assumed he had WMD but it was W's responsibility to know it since he is "The Decider." He didn't know for sure and he lied that he did know and then proactively started a war. The democrats did none of that.
I loved your post in the thread rimmy mentioned. I'm not sure how I missed it at the time. I may have been out of town. (sometimes I go where there are no computers... the horror!!! ) I'm going to post it again: (from krosfyah) I STRONGLY disagree. In America (you know...in reality...not in Eden) we have about 4,600 classifications of Murder. 1st degree 2nd degree Manslaughter Involuntary manslaughter etc etc etc Lying about taking an entire country into war - 1st degree lying Lying about a BJ - involuntary manlying On top of that, Bush has been shown to lie repeatedly about various issues. Some would call that being a pathalogical liar. The kicker is... Bush's lies are of consequence to national security. I can live with standard political lies. That is your point right? That we should forgive Bush because all politicans lie? Well Bush has taken the "typical policial lie" and elevated it to new heights! By many accounts of historians and politicians, this Bush administration is responsible for a shift in American politics the likes that nobody alive today has ever seen. That CANNOT be dismissed. How important you feel it is probably is a matter of your personal views but right-wingers shouldn't dismiss it as simple partisian politics as usual. Nothing about Bush's politics is "usual." Beautiful. Keep D&D Civil.
