On WMD's -- what did the Democrats say?

[Tigermike 3,711]

On WMD's -- what did the Democrats say?

Larry Elder

January 22, 2004

Did Saddam Hussein and his interest in weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to the United States? Just ask the Democrats.

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D), appearing on "Face the Nation" in September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." In February 2003, during an address at Drake University, Dean said, "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. (Hussein) is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given."

Dean, on "Meet the Press" in March 2003, said he believed that Iraq "is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons." Yet, in his now familiar flip-flop style, candidate Dean later declared, "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States."

In the left-leaning New Republic, Ryan Lizza wrote: "Did Howard Dean actually support a war resolution giving Bush authority to attack Iraq? The answer is: pretty much. . . . Dean himself admitted . . . that he did indeed support (the Biden-Lugar resolution). . . . According to Biden-Lugar, all Bush had to do was 'make available to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution.' Isn't this exactly what happened?"

Gen. Wesley Clark, before he became an anti-war Democratic presidential candidate, testified on Sept. 26, 2002, before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense. . . . Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. . . . When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval. . . . There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.

". . . I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as pre-emptive. . . . This is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this. . . . There's no question that . . . there have been such contacts (between Iraq and al Qaeda). It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that, regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections, that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

Former President Bill Clinton, more recently, visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso in October 2003. The prime minister said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, said on Oct. 10, 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."

So, forget President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the pro-war "neo-cons." Just listen to the Democrats. On the issue of the "unilateral" invasion of Iraq, they make a pretty strong case.

http://www.larryelder.com/

[MDM4AU 338]

...failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War.

That's very interesting when just a year ago, the "savior" of the wacko left was saying that. He said it, CLinton said it, and others from the left agreed. Now when it can help them politically (so they think) some of those same leftists have flip-flopped! Go figure!

[Donutboy 0]

There's flip flops and there's outright lies. A flip flop is when you claim to have agreed to give the power of war to Dubya because you were mislead but wouldn't have supported it if you'd known the truth.(re: Kerry) A lie is when you know the information is false and continue giving it as fact!!

Fiction review: State of the Union

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

By Gene Collier, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Last year's State of the Union address didn't come until Jan. 28, but back then there were no Iowa caucuses to divert attention from, and, in the judgment of White House political operatives, there was no particular rush to have George Bush lie on the record.

If you go to the White House Web site, in addition to video of the first dog ("Barney II: Barney reloaded" is the icon), you'll find the same lies still lying there in the text of last January's speech, including "We will not pass along our problems to . . . other generations" (see the deficit and add the moon and Mars), and the big one, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The deceitful chronology of how that whopper got to Bush's nationally televised lips, and the administration's reaction to the proof that it was a lie to help launch a war on skimpy intelligence, remain the most illuminating episodes to date on a White House that does what it pleases even if means people have to die.

When Dick Cheney urged the dispatch of Joseph Wilson, an African ambassador during the first Bush administration, to Niger to investigate Hussein's interest in that country's supply of "yellowcake" uranium (the kind needed to develop nuclear weapons), one might reasonably assume that Cheney would have some interest in the outcome of that investigation.

Oh no. Not if the outcome was that no such Niger-to-Saddam transaction is even possible, its existence later revealed as a loosely linked fantasy of forged documents. Wilson briefed the American ambassador in Niger, the CIA and the State Department upon his return. That was in February of 2002, 11 months before last year's State of the Union address.

As recently as June 2002, Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, said she was unaware that Wilson had even been sent to Niger until asked about it on a talk show. But as former senior CIA analyst Ray McGovern told the journalist William Rivers Pitt last month, "There's too much deception here. Condoleezza Rice insisting she only learned about Ambassador Wilson's mission in June means that neither she nor her staff reads The New York Times. [Op-ed columnist] Nick Kristof on May 6 had a very detailed explication of Wilson's mission to Niger. It is inconceivable. Her remark -- that she didn't know about Joe Wilson's mission to Niger until she was asked on a talk show on June 8 -- is stretching the truth beyond the breaking point."

When Wilson wrote an editorial in The Times explaining the results of his mission, revealing that it was known at the highest levels of the administration that the Niger claim was bogus, and that, obviously, someone let Bush lie about it anyway to maintain momentum during the ramp-up to war, he was "Plamed," as the saying now goes. Someone in the administration called journalists with the revelation that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a deep cover CIA operative. One columnist, Robert Novak, wrote it, and the administration was avenged.

"I operate from the assumption," Wilson told Pitt, "that the reason for doing this was to discourage others who were talking to the press -- and there were many -- from coming forward more openly. The message was, 'Be very careful; do a Wilson on us, and we will do a Plame on you.' This may have discouraged many of them from coming forward. I don't know to be sure, but I've seen far less insider stories about what we were hearing, stories of Cheney pressuring CIA analysts and the like, than there were a few months ago."

As for the famous weapons of mass destruction justification for the pre-emptive Iraq action, the same phantom numbers also remain on the White House Web site: 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinim toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, and 30,000 munitions for delivering chemical weapons. And even though Secretary of Offense Donald Rumsfeld said, "we know where they are," not an ounce of any of it has been found after nearly a year of investigation and occupation.

In the meantime, 500 young Americans are dead, thousands more maimed, and the far greater number of Iraqi civilians blown to bits, many of them children, can't even be reliably estimated.

But sure, the White House got what it wanted. Maybe in November it'll get what it deserves.

Fiction review: State of the Union

[MDM4AU 338]

Hey, DB, what did happen to the weapons the inspectors found, were there when they were kicked out, yet he never accounted for when they were let back in? This is a serious question.

[Donutboy 0]

Hey, DB, what did happen to the weapons the inspectors found, were there when they were kicked out, yet he never accounted for when they were let back in? This is a serious question.

If I believe your assertion, my guess would be they were destroyed. Let me get you up to speed. After the last gulf war, the UN passed a resolution requiring Saddam Hussein to destroy his WMDs. To make sure that he complied, the UN dispatched weapons inspectors on a (somewhat) regular basis. Saddam Hussein tried to dictate when and where they could search. Eventually, after much discussion and threat, Hussein relented and inspectors were allowed to do their search, somewhat unabated. Saddam Hussein still tried to stall them. Through all of this, the inspectors never found a shred of evidence that Hussein had not destroyed his WMDs.

Cowboy Dubya come ridin' in and declared that we had proof that Hussein was lieing and that he still possessed these weapons. Colin Powell went to the UN and declared that all of his satellite maps proved that he still had these WMDs and they could be mobilized and moved with ease. Donald Rumsfield even declared that we knew where they were.

My question would be, if we knew where they were and were tracking them by satellite, how did we lose them and where can such massive amounts of WMDs, as listed on the government's own website, possibly be hidden?

[Tiger Al 0]

Hey, DB, what did happen to the weapons the inspectors found, were there when they were kicked out, yet he never accounted for when they were let back in? This is a serious question.

When do you think they were kicked out?

[Donutboy 0]

Hey, DB, what did happen to the weapons the inspectors found, were there when they were kicked out, yet he never accounted for when they were let back in?  This is a serious question.

When do you think they were kicked out?

That was the same question that I had TA, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I tried to Google it myself but found only that the UN removed the weapons inspectors because Saddam Hussein wasn't fully cooperating. They were later sent back in after twisting Hussein's arm a bit. I could find nothing about WMDs being found by the inspectors or Saddam Hussein being the one who "kicked out" the inspectors.

[MDM4AU 338]

I'm sorry, Al. BEFORE THEY WERE REMOVED, LEFT, SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTED... not the point of my post, but thanks for playing anyway.

Thanks DB for realizing that was not an imortant part of my post!

[Tiger Al 0]

I'm sorry, Al. BEFORE THEY WERE REMOVED, LEFT, SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTED... not the point of my post, but thanks for playing anyway.

Thanks DB for realizing that was not an imortant part of my post!

It was an inaccurate part of your post. In 1998, which I'm guessing is when you meant, the inspectors were withdrawn by the UN at the request of President Clinton right before the start of Operation Desert Fox. It's important because inaccuracies like that are but one of many that Bush perpetuated to justify attacking Iraq.

[MDM4AU 338]

Al, I know you are probably sleep deprived at this moment, so I will go easy on you. The part you seem to be highlighting and attacking and then trying to tie to the Bush Admn. was not the point of the post. It had to do with weapons that were there at one point, then (however it happened, and it's not important to the post) the inspectors were gone! When they return, there is no evidence of the weapons. That is what I was asking about. I know that is hard for you to understand. Rather than believeing you are a total jack-a$$ today I prefer to think the best and just write it off to lack of sleep on your part.

Now, go lay down and go night-night. We'll all be here when you get back.

[Donutboy 0]

Al, I know you are probably sleep deprived at this moment, so I will go easy on you.  The part you seem to be highlighting and attacking and then trying to tie to the Bush Admn. was not the point of the post.  It had to do with weapons that were there at one point, then (however it happened, and it's not important to the post) the inspectors were gone!  When they return, there is no evidence of the weapons.  That is what I was asking about.  I know that is hard for you to understand.  Rather than believeing you are a total jack-a$$ today I prefer to think the best and just write it off to lack of sleep on your part.

Now, go lay down and go night-night.  We'll all be here when you get back.

I can understand the philosophy here. We said they were there. They weren't. No one denies that Saddam Hussein had them at one point. We gave them to him. We also know that he used them extensively in our... (oops!) HIS war with Iran. We also know he gassed his own people while the Reagan/Bush administration looked the other way. We don't know that he still had any left or whether he had used them all up or destroyed them. Now, since we've gone in and can't find ANYTHING, we try to wipe the egg off of our face by declaring that we don't know he didn't still have them because he did at one time.

You know what. I once had a beard. I don't have it anymore. I'm sure someone who hasn't seen me for a while would declare vehemently that I have a beard, even if people who had seen me lately said I was clean shaven. Like Saddam Hussein and the WMDs, just because I once had a beard doesn't mean that I still do.

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, I know you are probably sleep deprived at this moment, so I will go easy on you. The part you seem to be highlighting and attacking and then trying to tie to the Bush Admn. was not the point of the post. It had to do with weapons that were there at one point, then (however it happened, and it's not important to the post) the inspectors were gone! When they return, there is no evidence of the weapons. That is what I was asking about. I know that is hard for you to understand. Rather than believeing you are a total jack-a$$ today I prefer to think the best and just write it off to lack of sleep on your part.

Now, go lay down and go night-night. We'll all be here when you get back.

You still haven't got it right. In 1998, the inspectors weren't stumbling over WMD's and destroying them and on returning to Iraq they find that all of the WMD's are...gone.

But, all of this is a red herring, anyway. Bush and Powell and the rest of them said throughout late 2002 and early 2003 that Iraq was an immediate threat. They knew right then exactly where the WMD's were. Not where they used to be but where they were at the time. (late 2002 and early 2003) That's important!!! In December of 2003 UNMOVIC (weapons inspectors) were given unfettered unhindered and fully cooperative access to anywhere in Iraq they wanted to go, including the presidential palaces which were, to this point, out of bounds. That's important!!! The administration was directing the inspectors on where they should look, even at times giving them specific coordinates, and at every location they found nothing. That's VERY important!!!

If the police obtained a warrant to search your house because they said they KNEW that tons of cocaine, hundreds of illegal firearms and prostitution were there and then, after arresting you and turning your house upside down, they found none of it to be present, how could they be justified in proceeding to trial? Same thing here. Everything Bush said about Iraq was wrong but instead of standing down, Bush proceeds to trial with no evidence at all.

[MDM4AU 338]

Are you still here?

[Tigermike 3,711]

You still haven't got it right. In 1998, the inspectors weren't stumbling over WMD's and destroying them and on returning to Iraq they find that all of the WMD's are...gone.

Where are they?

[Tiger Al 0]

Most inspectors believe they got 'em all in the early nineties.

[rexbo 104]

Most inspectors believe they got 'em all in the early nineties.

What is really important now is that we KNOW (not just believe) that Saddam will not be using any WMDs on his neighbors, or selling them to terrorists. To claim that we would all be better off right now guessing if Saddam had WMDs or not is absolutely ludicrous.

[Tiger Al 0]

Most inspectors believe they got 'em all in the early nineties.

What is really important now is that we KNOW (not just believe) that Saddam will not be using any WMDs on his neighbors, or selling them to terrorists. To claim that we would all be better off right now guessing if Saddam had WMDs or not is absolutely ludicrous.

It was KNOWN before. You really haven't given this much thought, have you?

[rexbo 104]

Yes, of course, common knowledge. And common knowledge that Johnson had Kennedy killed, it happened in Texas, didn't it? And common knowledge that it was a US missle that hit the Pentagon on 9/11, not an airliner. And common knowledge that the Apollo landings were faked.

To say that Bush and his administration KNEW that Saddam did NOT have WMDs is bordering on insanity. Because even now, today, after 7 months of searching, no one KNOWS what WMDs he did or did not have. If we had that kind of intelligence capability, people posted that deep inside Saddam's Government, then Saddam would never have lasted until Dec, he would have been killed on that first night of bombing. This is not a movie with James Bond and Felix driving around Baghdad last Jan, telling Bush on their satellite phone that they "...couldn't find any WMDs, but come on Georgie, keep up your charade with the American people and take out Saddam anyway, we found some mass graves." Let's all use some common sense here, please.