Wednesday, November 02, 2005

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD
JANUARY 30, 2004 (sorry, I basically cut and paste this from )

It is amusing when you think about it all. Sure, the " what about this claim of Iraq ties to Al Quaida?" will be the response. But still, what good were all these comments then? I mean, were all these people NOT WILLING to back them up with action? Courtesy of Neverdock.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source


javaricho said...

Amazing how they seem to have developed collective ammnesia since then. When will people ever learn the dangars of appeasement.

javaricho said...

Ps Sorry for the bad spelling in previous post

rod said...

Very cute.

Of course, the Democrats (spineless as they are) were not actually mistaken - rather, they were the victims of an intense, intentional, and very illegal disinformation campaign mounted by the PNAC traitors and lintbrain thugs in President Cheney's governing cabal (AKA the White House Iraq Group). It's hard to arrive at a correct, reality-based conclusion when the only data on which you have to rely is forged Italian documents, and intelligence and threat assessments from which all dissenting voices (and there were many) are methodically scrubbed in a conscious, callous campaign of lies.

Try again. And try harder next time.

Anonymous said...


Breaking the comments into two segments (pre Bush II and Post Bush II):

1) Pre Bush II: These folks were talking about surgical strikes, covert aid to anti-Saddam forces, sanctions, inspections, etc., not going to war with him and putting Americans in harm's way. So the statements made preBush II are just that: statements. They were not tied to any definitive subsequent concrete actions, and can be dismissed as posturing either for political gain or to send messages to Saddam. (Also, at that time, it may actually have been true, but I have no proof one way or another as to that.)

Post Bush II: What if those folks were lied to as well? After Bush took office and especially after 9/11, it seems to me that the Bush II administration was "cooking the books" with the intel, to put going to war in the most favorable light (which, btw, is what they wanted anyway). While Democratic politicians may have been suspicious of this, there was no concrete evidence to which they could point that it was so, and Bush II admin had created a climate where ANY dissent (or even questioning) was considered un-patriotic. (I saw this even amongst the general populace, must have been much more severe for politicians in the limelight.) So, if anything, I blame these politicians for not exercising thier constitutional responsibilities to question the admin well enough, but that goes for R's as well as D's. It's entirely possible that all the intel information they saw was filtered through Bush II admin, or presented by intel officials (CIA, etc) that were either Bush II friendly or actually put in place by Bush II. I read a report that career intel officials at CIA have dropped by 15% since Bush II came to office and replaced by appointees.

Doesn't matter though, because it was the Bush II admin was the instigator of this course of action and had the ultimate responsibility for checking the facts. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, the quoted politicians are NOT under investigation for CREATING the lies, or for conspiring to squash dissent and punish dissenters (i.e Wilson and Plame).