Set The Record Straight
- Thread starter bountyhunter
- Start date
- Status
Destructo6
Member
How do you reconcile that statement with this:
http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/priorpay/1999.pdf
and
http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/priorpay/2003.pdf ?
Our sons and daughters are adult volunteers and will fulfill their contractual obligations.
So the US military's purpose is to enforce UN resolutions? Do you believe that that is that what motivates US national security policies?
That was back in the 1980s. According to Gen. Hussein Kamal – director of Iraq's nuke, chem-bio and missile programs who defected to the West - the weapons programs were terminated and the weapon stocks themselves destroyed.
If you really want to take a look at history, let's go back a little further.
In 1963 the CIA supported the Ba'ath Party's coup against the Kassem republic. Ba'ath activists, including a young Saddam, gunned down Kassem and many others on a list provided by the CIA. In 1968 the CIA fomented a palace revolt in which the Ba'athists eliminated their coalition partners and assumed direct control. According to CIA officer Roger Morris, a staff member of the US National Security Council under the Johnson and Nixon adminsitrations, "It was a regime that was unquestionably midwived by the United States and the CIA's involvement there was really primary."
Or ask the US government officials who supported Saddam's government while he was deploying such weapons against Iran in the 1980s. The Reagan adminsitration ordered US intelligence to Saddam with satellite intel on Iran's troop deployments. It assisted Saddam with billions of loans under the cover of promoting American farme xports. The CIA sent weapons. The US gov sent Baghdad weapons-grade anthrax, advanced computers, and equipment to repair jet engines and rockets. And this is just the stuff that we know about. Maybe someday they will declassify National Security Decision Directive 114 of 14 November 1983.
Too bad the CIA killed off Iran's earlier pro-democracy movement when it overthrew the constitutionally-elected government of Iran in 1953. See _All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror_ by Stephen Kinzer (John Wiley & Sons: 2003). The CIA created the SAVAK, the Shah's hated secret police. The US fedgov doesn't give a flying *** about democracy in the middle east. For Washington to take credit for whatever progress made by the pro-democracy movement in Iran is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.
It should. You are perceived as being weak, you will be bullied as such.
Goodness. Weapons-grade anthrax. Isn't that a ... weapon of mass destruction? You know, the kind that supposedly doesn't exist?
Ever since planes wound up getting flown into our skyscrapers, the US FedGov has been giving a flying *** about democracy in the middle east.
LawDog
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
I think that would actually be Jack Kennedy (or Lyndon Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution he lied to get - take your pick) dragging us into Vietnam in order to prevent the SE Asian countries from "falling like dominos" to the communists.
As for 100% wrong, I think it's more like only 25% wrong since WMDs were only one of a number of different reasond the Bush Admin. gave for going to war. And Bush was only wrong about the actual presence of WMDs, not Iraq capability to produce them or willingness to use them.
As evil as Saddam is, it appears that he had no connection to 9-11.
Iraq posed no threat to us.
The kind that was destroyed according to General Hussein Kamal. The kind that that *no one can find in Iraq* despite repeated assurances from Bush, Rumsfeld, Fleischer, Cheny, etc. that such weapons exist.
No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq found - not even one itty-bitty one. No uranium from Niger. No aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." Iraq was not "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon as Bush told us - not even close. Iraq did not maintain a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used, in Bush's words, "for missions targeting the United States." All lies.
The Bush administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people in order to get its war. Now we have 550 dead US soldiers, more than 3000 wounded, an occupation with no end in sight, US credibility in the toilet, strained relations with allies, and the growing perception in the Arab and Moslem world that the US is an arrogant imperialist nation which whose right is to launch pre-emptive war against nation we want.
And meanwhile at home this same government is rolling back civil liberties as fast as it can.
We can be either a republic or an empire - but not both.
Hkmp5sd
Member
Who cares? Prior to 9/11 (and contibuting greatly to causing 9/11), the perception in the Arab and Moslem world was that the US is an arrogant imperialist nation which was a paper tiger and would do nothing, no matter how many or where you killed its citizens.
Do you wait until after someone shoots at you before you use your gun to defend yourself? Why should the US be any different?
fallingblock
Member
nice attempt at spin. idd.....
"Now we have 550 dead US soldiers, more than 3000 wounded, an occupation with no end in sight, US credibility in the toilet, strained relations with allies, and the growing perception in the Arab and Moslem world that the US is an arrogant imperialist nation which whose right is to launch pre-emptive war against nation we want."
************************************************************
But no points.....
550 U.S. dead is a bargain price for the size of the military action and the degree of stabilization already achieved.
U.S. credibility is probably at the highest it's been for the past dozen years or so, among the nations in the middle east as well as the 'fence sitters' who can appreciate a superpower that acts like one instead of cringing and hurling the odd cruise missile ala Clinton.
Witness Libya's "conversion" since the U.S. demonstrated it's new-found resolve to proactive defense.
The other muslim nations may still be making the noises, but they are less willing to take the offensive than before Iraq.
A fine strategic plan by some folks who actually understand the advantage of resolve in the real world.
"Now we have 550 dead US soldiers, more than 3000 wounded, an occupation with no end in sight, US credibility in the toilet, strained relations with allies, and the growing perception in the Arab and Moslem world that the US is an arrogant imperialist nation which whose right is to launch pre-emptive war against nation we want."
************************************************************
But no points.....
550 U.S. dead is a bargain price for the size of the military action and the degree of stabilization already achieved.
U.S. credibility is probably at the highest it's been for the past dozen years or so, among the nations in the middle east as well as the 'fence sitters' who can appreciate a superpower that acts like one instead of cringing and hurling the odd cruise missile ala Clinton.
Witness Libya's "conversion" since the U.S. demonstrated it's new-found resolve to proactive defense.
The other muslim nations may still be making the noises, but they are less willing to take the offensive than before Iraq.
A fine strategic plan by some folks who actually understand the advantage of resolve in the real world.
Michigander
Member
Before the war...
UN: Passes resolutions against Iraq.
Washington: The UN is wise in passing resolutions against Iraq.
Washington: We must go to war now!
UN: No! We will not vote to go to war at this time. Our inspectors need more time to find WMD's
Washington: NO! The UN is not wise. We cannot wait any longer. We are going to go to war to enforce the UN resolutions even though you, the UN who passed the resolutions, say not to.
After the war, when the US troop can go practically anywhere they please...
Half the World: Where are the WMD's?
Washington: Our inspectors need more time to find WMD's.
LOL! Doublespeak anyone?
UN: Passes resolutions against Iraq.
Washington: The UN is wise in passing resolutions against Iraq.
Washington: We must go to war now!
UN: No! We will not vote to go to war at this time. Our inspectors need more time to find WMD's
Washington: NO! The UN is not wise. We cannot wait any longer. We are going to go to war to enforce the UN resolutions even though you, the UN who passed the resolutions, say not to.
After the war, when the US troop can go practically anywhere they please...
Half the World: Where are the WMD's?
Washington: Our inspectors need more time to find WMD's.
LOL! Doublespeak anyone?
"The Bush administration's inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- after public statements declaring an imminent threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- has begun to harm the credibility abroad of the United States and of American intelligence, according to foreign policy experts in both parties."
The Washington Post, 19 January 2004
"Arms issue seen as hurting US credibility"
<whew> We stopped 'em in the nick of time. And to think that before the US invaded Iraq thay were just banging on our door, amassing troops and ships out in the Gulf of Mexico, just itching to get us.
Boy we sure showed them.
The State Department's own annual study, Patterns of Global Terrorism, could not list any serious act of international terrorism connected to the government of Iraq.
"The United States, eager to launch military strikes against Iraq, instructed UNSCOM director Richard Butler in 1998 to provoke Iraq into breaking its agreement to fully cooperate with UNSCOM. Without consulting the UN Security Council as required, Butler announced to the Iraqis that he was nullifying agreements dealing with sensitive sites and chose the Baath Party headquarters in Baghdad--a very unlikely place to store weapons of mass destruction--as the site at which to demand unfettered access. The Iraqis refused. Clinton then asked Butler to withdraw UNSCOM forces, and the United States launched a four-day bombing campaign, which gave the Iraqis an excuse to block UNSCOM inspectors from returning." Stephen Zunes, "The Case Against War" Zunes is editor of the Foreign Policy In Focus website. http://www.fpif.org/
Stabilization? That remains to be seen. "Bush Administration Faces Growing Chaos in Iraq While Some Plan Expansion of War," By Jim Lobe, January 29, 2004. Six months before the invasion, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni told the annual Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy, “we are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started.â€
“CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war,†was the lead sentence in a front-page article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 22.
Oh really? Is that why the CIA is recruiting former officers of Mukhabarat, Saddam's hated secret police?
The Sunday Times reports that "American forces have launched a covert campaign to recruit former officers of the Mukhabarat, Saddam Hussein's infamous secret police, who were responsible for the deaths and torture of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis." It reports that dozens of these sadistic and brutal murderers are now employed by the US "for help in hunting resistance groups" within Iraq, as well as "identifying and tracking down Iraqis suspected of spying for Iran and Syria, the neighbouring countries most hostile to Washington."
Another article here.
John Pike, an expert on classified military budget at the Washington-based Global Security organization, told The Telegraph: “The creation of a well-functioning secret police, that in effect is a branch of the CIA, is part of the general handover strategy. The presence of a powerful secret police loyal to the Americans will mean that the new Iraqi political regime will not stray outside the parameters that the US wants to set. To begin with, the new Iraqi government will reign but not rule.â€
Maybe it will another one of those death squad democracies that the CIA is so famous for.
Michigander
Member
1) If the people of other nations are not willing to fight for their own freedom, then they are not entitled to it.
2) Why should our brave young men and women do their fighting and dying for them?
3) Which country is next on the very long list of nations in which we must go and "give" their people the "opportunity" they are entitled to with our soldier's and marine's blood and our, our children's and our grandchildren's tax dollars to pay for it?
Michigander
HunterGatherer
member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 379
There goes any chance of ever taking anything you say seriously.
fallingblock
Member
Woo-hooo...another anti-Bush poster....
Hello idd:
************************************************************
The Washington Post, 19 January 2004
"Arms issue seen as hurting US credibility"
************************************************************
Your source is noted for it's lack of success at factual and unbiased reporting....especially concerning the Iraq war.
************************************************************
"<whew> We stopped 'em in the nick of time. And to think that before the US invaded Iraq thay were just banging on our door, amassing troops and ships out in the Gulf of Mexico, just itching to get us."
************************************************************
Actually, not quite in the nick of time...there was a World Trade Center in New York City before some folks flew aircraft into it.
************************************************************
Boy we sure showed them.
************************************************************
We are, indeed "showing them"...and the majority are paying attention.
************************************************************
The State Department's own annual study, Patterns of Global Terrorism, could not list any serious act of international terrorism connected to the government of Iraq.
************************************************************
Uh-huh. And this is a surprise? Have you not been paying attention to the woeful failures of various and sundry U.S. intelligence agencies?
************************************************************
Stabilization? That remains to be seen. "Bush Administration Faces Growing Chaos in Iraq While Some Plan Expansion of War," By Jim Lobe,
***********************************************************
Jim Lobe is another of those folks who write what they feel, not what they see.
***********************************************************
“CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war,†was the lead sentence in a front-page article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 22.
************************************************************
It is a pity so much of the U.S. media is controlled by leftist anti-Bush concerns. The Philidelphia Inquirer has never, to my knowledge, run a positive story on the Bush Administration. I wonder, do they identify their "CIA officers"?
************************************************************
" The presence of a powerful secret police loyal to the Americans will mean that the new Iraqi political regime will not stray outside the parameters that the US wants to set. To begin with, the new Iraqi government will reign but not rule.â€
************************************************************
And this is not prudent in what way? With all the anti-Bush folks squealing about a 'potential theocracy' and 'fundamentalist state', how does this possibility strike them as unwise?
************************************************************
Maybe it will another one of those death squad democracies that the CIA is so famous for.
************************************************************
Name one "death squad democracy" that you have incontrovertible proof of U.S. led "death squads" operating in.
Cite your evidence, or let the myths rest.
Hello idd:
************************************************************
The Washington Post, 19 January 2004
"Arms issue seen as hurting US credibility"
************************************************************
Your source is noted for it's lack of success at factual and unbiased reporting....especially concerning the Iraq war.
************************************************************
"<whew> We stopped 'em in the nick of time. And to think that before the US invaded Iraq thay were just banging on our door, amassing troops and ships out in the Gulf of Mexico, just itching to get us."
************************************************************
Actually, not quite in the nick of time...there was a World Trade Center in New York City before some folks flew aircraft into it.
************************************************************
Boy we sure showed them.
************************************************************
We are, indeed "showing them"...and the majority are paying attention.
************************************************************
The State Department's own annual study, Patterns of Global Terrorism, could not list any serious act of international terrorism connected to the government of Iraq.
************************************************************
Uh-huh. And this is a surprise? Have you not been paying attention to the woeful failures of various and sundry U.S. intelligence agencies?
************************************************************
Stabilization? That remains to be seen. "Bush Administration Faces Growing Chaos in Iraq While Some Plan Expansion of War," By Jim Lobe,
***********************************************************
Jim Lobe is another of those folks who write what they feel, not what they see.
***********************************************************
“CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war,†was the lead sentence in a front-page article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 22.
************************************************************
It is a pity so much of the U.S. media is controlled by leftist anti-Bush concerns. The Philidelphia Inquirer has never, to my knowledge, run a positive story on the Bush Administration. I wonder, do they identify their "CIA officers"?
************************************************************
" The presence of a powerful secret police loyal to the Americans will mean that the new Iraqi political regime will not stray outside the parameters that the US wants to set. To begin with, the new Iraqi government will reign but not rule.â€
************************************************************
And this is not prudent in what way? With all the anti-Bush folks squealing about a 'potential theocracy' and 'fundamentalist state', how does this possibility strike them as unwise?
************************************************************
Maybe it will another one of those death squad democracies that the CIA is so famous for.
************************************************************
Name one "death squad democracy" that you have incontrovertible proof of U.S. led "death squads" operating in.
Cite your evidence, or let the myths rest.
My god, you "hate America 1sters" are really frosting me. Some of the drivel you let drip out of your suckholes is so wrong. I'm heading back there in about a month. Get your fat ??? out of your lounge chair and join me to see what is actually going on or shut the hell up. At least take the time to educate yourself in this. No matter how many times you say "G-Bud told us it was an imminent threat" - doesn't make it so. No one ever said it. Get real for gods sake, go wash your dreadlocks or buff your birkenstocks or some such thing..... 
To understand this controversy
you must not look at Iraq, Afghanistan, WMDs, or Halliburton.
Look at Florida 2000. Ever since that issue was decided, we have had a lot of folks who simply hate Bush. Whatever he did after that would be lies, no matter the evidence. This is why their arguments are so circular and circumstantial: they are not based on reason, but anger. And that is why this president can be condemned for thinking and saying what an earlier president was praised for.
And you can't reason with anger.
you must not look at Iraq, Afghanistan, WMDs, or Halliburton.
Look at Florida 2000. Ever since that issue was decided, we have had a lot of folks who simply hate Bush. Whatever he did after that would be lies, no matter the evidence. This is why their arguments are so circular and circumstantial: they are not based on reason, but anger. And that is why this president can be condemned for thinking and saying what an earlier president was praised for.
And you can't reason with anger.
ojibweindian
Member
I'm no G-Bush fan, but Iraq was a good call.
I really don't care why we kicked the crap outta them, I'm just glad we did. Personally, I think that we shouldn't stop at Iraq, either. While we're there, we should take care of Syria. Wipe 'em out, and then let the remnants sort out the mess.
I really don't care why we kicked the crap outta them, I'm just glad we did. Personally, I think that we shouldn't stop at Iraq, either. While we're there, we should take care of Syria. Wipe 'em out, and then let the remnants sort out the mess.
Yowza
Member
Khornet, I think you have an excellent point. I've been trying to figure out for a while now, what is it that people hate so much about Bush? Granted I've only been alive for seven presidencies, but the sheer unbridled hatred is something I've never seen and is truly astounding.
As far as Iraq goes, I don't see how it can't be a good thing for the US. Talk is cheap, but Bush has proven that America has the ability AND the will to protect itself. Two-bit guerrillas and terrorists notwithstanding, the US military completely destroyed Irag's forces in a month and every middle east government knows that it could have just as easily been them. Regardless of Iraq's apparent lack of complicity in the WTC attacks, Saddam had shown himself to be defiant and dangerous to US interests. Even if he were just being ousted to make a point, I think it probably wouldn't have been a bad move. But Bush had intelligence that there was some greater threat there, and who wouldn't have been screaming for impeachment had he done nothing and the intel turned out to be true.
Rick
As far as Iraq goes, I don't see how it can't be a good thing for the US. Talk is cheap, but Bush has proven that America has the ability AND the will to protect itself. Two-bit guerrillas and terrorists notwithstanding, the US military completely destroyed Irag's forces in a month and every middle east government knows that it could have just as easily been them. Regardless of Iraq's apparent lack of complicity in the WTC attacks, Saddam had shown himself to be defiant and dangerous to US interests. Even if he were just being ousted to make a point, I think it probably wouldn't have been a bad move. But Bush had intelligence that there was some greater threat there, and who wouldn't have been screaming for impeachment had he done nothing and the intel turned out to be true.
Rick
Hkmp5sd
Member
Yep. Right after the invasion started Iran and Syria were so worried they were next, they began a major sucking up campaign. They would have even joined NATO if Bush had asked. Syria stopped Saddam at the border and pointed him back to Bagdad.
Of course, after a few weeks, they started getting a little braver and now talk like they are big, bad tough guys that we'd better not mess with.
Nate_m
Member
So because our goverment has screwed up in the past means we should keep screwing up? Sounds like great logic to me. BTW I agree with most the rest of your post.
OK, this is one I have never understood. To make the argument that Bush et.al. "lied, misled, perpetrated a fraud" or whatever formula is the spin of the day, you have to believe some or all of the following:
1. Saddam had no WMD, and instead of proving to the world that he did not, he continued to pursue a path of action that would result in his destruction.
2. Making a command decision based on bad information is the same as "lying, perpetraing a fraud, ect". If Bush and Co. thought, based on bad intelligence, that there were WMD's, then the war could not be a fraud -- they may have been WRONG, but they were not lying, committing a fraud, etc. (Believe it or not folks, there is a difference between making a decision based on bad info. and lying.)
3. IF Bush and Co. knew that there were no WMD's, then the thought process in the White House had to be something along the following: "OK, we know that there are no WMD's -- we know that as soon as we take over Iraq, this will become known and there will be hell to pay. But we will STILL use the WMD argument to justify the war, instead of some other plausible rationale. We don't care about the consequences politically, we just like the WMD tale so much we are going to stick to it."
4. The entire western world and all of their intelligence services cooperated in pulling off Bush's fraud on the world. They all, including Bill Clinton, looked at the evidence, realized that kindly uncle Saddam no longer had WMD, but lied about it.
I am NOT a Bush fan, but I cannot believe any of the above points based on the evidence to date. There are a huge amount of political points to be made against Bush without going into this kind of problem laden ill-logic.
I had training from the Fire Academy and FBI on terroism while working for an emergency response team. This was after the 1st bombing of the WTC and Oklahoma. The materials that were released to us were pretty amazing, not only did it cover WMD, but the most likely sponsers of terrorism (both domestic and non-US). Iraq was listed as a prinicple resource long before Bush took office. This is not in his defense, but does show that the US was preparing EMS/Fire/LE for attacks here at home long before the planes hit.
gburner
member
Like the police captain in 'Casablanca'
who is SHOCKED, just SHOCKED to see gambling going on at Ric's place, you hand wringing finger pointers are just as genuine when expressing your outrage that a president would allegedly maipulate events and deceive the public about the need for hostilities to protect our interests or insure our national security. It ain't the first time, folks.
To wit.....
Painting the plains Indians as bloodthirsty savages to justify the persuit of a racist, genocidal, nationalist policy of Manifest Destiny.
(read theft)
Using Federal troops to sieze property belonging to the various states, thus altering the Secession crisis from a political issue to a military one.
(read theft)
The mix of jingoism ratcheted up by TR and yellow journalism by WR Hurst that resulted in our kicking the Spanish back to the Iberian penninsula and taking all of their possessions (read theft). The 'Maine' was a set up.
The sinking of the Lusitania, which was being used to transport weapons and ammo despite protestations to the contrary by the Wilson admin.
The attack on Pearl Harbor which the FDR admin. almost certainly knew was afoot
but needed a pretext to get the fence sitters and isolationists on board.
The theory that communism, left unchecked, would spread like wildfire over Asia (Korean conflict) and Europe
(the Cold War and all it's attendant hysteria and paranoia). Who knew that it would die on the vine like the inedible fruit that it is.
The Gulf of Tonkin (non) Incident, another ginned up pretext to go to war.
Gotta keep those dominoes upright.
I'm sure there are some that I've missed
and some of you will let me know it. My
point is that you shouldn't be upset about the government or our leaders (read politicians) lying to us. That it happens with regularity is a given and one should not wail with such outrage when it does.
Removing Sadaam, stabilizing Iraq and demonstrating to the rest of the world that we still had a pair was the right thing to do, to me that's a no brainer. That events were manipulted and information spun to justify it to a skeptical populace...
c'mon, wake up and smell the coffee.
who is SHOCKED, just SHOCKED to see gambling going on at Ric's place, you hand wringing finger pointers are just as genuine when expressing your outrage that a president would allegedly maipulate events and deceive the public about the need for hostilities to protect our interests or insure our national security. It ain't the first time, folks.
To wit.....
Painting the plains Indians as bloodthirsty savages to justify the persuit of a racist, genocidal, nationalist policy of Manifest Destiny.
(read theft)
Using Federal troops to sieze property belonging to the various states, thus altering the Secession crisis from a political issue to a military one.
(read theft)
The mix of jingoism ratcheted up by TR and yellow journalism by WR Hurst that resulted in our kicking the Spanish back to the Iberian penninsula and taking all of their possessions (read theft). The 'Maine' was a set up.
The sinking of the Lusitania, which was being used to transport weapons and ammo despite protestations to the contrary by the Wilson admin.
The attack on Pearl Harbor which the FDR admin. almost certainly knew was afoot
but needed a pretext to get the fence sitters and isolationists on board.
The theory that communism, left unchecked, would spread like wildfire over Asia (Korean conflict) and Europe
(the Cold War and all it's attendant hysteria and paranoia). Who knew that it would die on the vine like the inedible fruit that it is.
The Gulf of Tonkin (non) Incident, another ginned up pretext to go to war.
Gotta keep those dominoes upright.
I'm sure there are some that I've missed
and some of you will let me know it. My
point is that you shouldn't be upset about the government or our leaders (read politicians) lying to us. That it happens with regularity is a given and one should not wail with such outrage when it does.
Removing Sadaam, stabilizing Iraq and demonstrating to the rest of the world that we still had a pair was the right thing to do, to me that's a no brainer. That events were manipulted and information spun to justify it to a skeptical populace...
c'mon, wake up and smell the coffee.
Hkmp5sd
Member
Not to mention, if he *knew* there were no WMD, think maybe he would have had the CIA *plant* some to be found by the troops, in front of the cameras, while he is interviewed in the oval office with a big "I told you so" grin?
I wish the media and Bush haters would pick either the "Bush is a stupid, moronic hillbilly" or the "Joseph Stalin reborn" description and stick to it. They can't claim he pulled off this massive, world wide conspiracy of world domination if they call him stupid. And if he's stupid, he couldn't pull of the world domination that they claim he did.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Somebody has a short memory, even if we assume you are right. LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?
ReadyontheRight
Member
"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 Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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 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 b elieve 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 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 weap ons 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.
"[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 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.
George Bush finally, actually DID SOMETHING about it.
So...is the Left truly upset about the whole WMD thing, or is it just a controversy that convenienly seems to "stick" because no one likes war? I believe it's the latter.
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 Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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 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 b elieve 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 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 weap ons 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.
"[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 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.
George Bush finally, actually DID SOMETHING about it.
So...is the Left truly upset about the whole WMD thing, or is it just a controversy that convenienly seems to "stick" because no one likes war? I believe it's the latter.
- Status
