Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[U2Edge]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

A fantastic letter and its wonderful that Saddam was finally removed 4.5 years after this letter was written with the support of Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the majority of Democratic Senators in the U.S. Senate. A job well done insuring the safety and security of Oil reserves in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Barain, and the United Arab Emirates. It was a necessity that Saddam be removed, despite the difficulties in rebuilding the Iraqi state which persist to this day.

 

[Campbell]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Nearly 20 years ago, and you haven't found something more interesting to talk about yet?

I wanna let the wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of the 4500 dead young Americans know how bad the Republicans wanted to send them to die.....not to mention the 35,000 who were seriously wounded....not to mention the trillion dollars of money borrowed from foreign banks to finance that fiasco.

 

[Campbell]

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

Thanks for rewriting history, it probably needed an update anyways.

Typical Republican. They catch it from Faux News. It goes on there 24/7.

Constantly bringing up Faux News is code for ""I'm a low-information voter who thinks "Glowbull Warming" is the biggest threat on Earth and I can't argue in a logical manner anymore""!

Screw Faux News and every regular watcher they have!

 

[Campbell]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Most of the folks that signed that letter wound up in George W. Bush's administration.

And?

And we got the biggest military blunder in a century

Mmm, attempting to destroy the Japanese Economy with economic warfare and not being on guard for them possibly upping the ante was bigger IMO.


But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid.

Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne.

Ask the loved ones of the 4500 dead young Americans and the 35,000 seriously wounded how they feel about it!

 

[Campbell]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

A fantastic letter and its wonderful that Saddam was finally removed 4.5 years after this letter was written with the support of Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the majority of Democratic Senators in the U.S. Senate. A job well done insuring the safety and security of Oil reserves in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Barain, and the United Arab Emirates. It was a necessity that Saddam be removed, despite the difficulties in rebuilding the Iraqi state which persist to this day.

Horse Shit!!

935 Lies: Study Documents Bush Admin’s False Statements Preceding Iraq War

 

[blastoff]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

As did these Democrats!



"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 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."
Madeleine 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.

"We 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.

"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."
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."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"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."
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 away 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 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.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 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 Rockefeller (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.

"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.


Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by several Democrats.

Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by John Kerry.

Sooooooo much Inconvenient Truth.

 

[Correll]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Most of the folks that signed that letter wound up in George W. Bush's administration.

And?

And we got the biggest military blunder in a century

Mmm, attempting to destroy the Japanese Economy with economic warfare and not being on guard for them possibly upping the ante was bigger IMO.


But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid.

Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne.

No, believing we would be treated as liberators was pretty stupid

Actually we were. People dancing in the streets.

When we handed them a Democratic system of government is when things went south.

 

[Correll]

I clearly said that Level 1 is what SHOULD have happened since they had only an Absence of Evidence.

How fucking stupid are you?

If Level 1 never happened, they have no reason to go to war.
As for 2, 3 and 4, you simply can't find a proper answer to satisfy yourself, can you?

If Level 1 happens, there are still plenty of reasons to go to war. Stop lying.

2,3,and 4? I'm completely satisfied with the historical record. You're the one playing the game were you try to define reality by what YOU consider valid.

Why are you being such an ass?

I'll ask you again, "If Level 1 happens, there are still plenty of reasons to go to war." Like what?

Why are you being such an asshole?

At least you and everyone here now know that you have nothing.

Err, I made and supported my points with no problem. YOu are just a moron who is to dumb or dishonest to admit when he has been schooled.

So fuck off.

 

[Correll]

The Sanctions were failing, remember the Oil FOr Food Scandal?

And considering how long Saddam was screwing around, ie thoughout the end of the Bush administration and all the Clinton years, one can hardly call the invasion an "immediate attack".

Over ten years and he has made no moves outside his borders

We needed to send 5000 Americans to their deaths beause Saddam was diverting food money?

You claimed he was contained. I pointed out that the containment was failing.

Do you remember what he was diverting food money TO?

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

How is that failing?

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

He was diverting the Oil for Food Money to buy weapons in violation of the Sanctions which was a big part of the containment.

Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

Saddam was stockpiling weapons? You mean like the US does and so does pretty much every other country in the world? And given the fact they Iraq was invaded by a foreign army, I'd say that their stockpiling of weapons was right on.

RW claimed that Saddam was safely contained.

Except he was not. He was stockpiling weapons.

 

[Muhammed]

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

And you are lying.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

And you are lying.

Those are not my words so that if anyone is lying its Colin Powell who spoke them...

 

[Muhammed]

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

And you are lying.

Those are not my words so that if anyone is lying its Colin Powell who spoke them...

There you go lying again.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

Thanks for rewriting history, it probably needed an update anyways.

Typical Republican. They catch it from Faux News. It goes on there 24/7.

Constantly bringing up Faux News is code for ""I'm a low-information voter who thinks "Glowbull Warming" is the biggest threat on Earth and I can't argue in a logical manner anymore""!

Screw Faux News and every regular watcher they have!

Fuck MSNBC.....and every faggot that actually believes half of the lies they pump out on a regular basis.

 

[Campbell]

Over ten years and he has made no moves outside his borders

We needed to send 5000 Americans to their deaths beause Saddam was diverting food money?

You claimed he was contained. I pointed out that the containment was failing.

Do you remember what he was diverting food money TO?

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

How is that failing?

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

He was diverting the Oil for Food Money to buy weapons in violation of the Sanctions which was a big part of the containment.

Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

Saddam was stockpiling weapons? You mean like the US does and so does pretty much every other country in the world? And given the fact they Iraq was invaded by a foreign army, I'd say that their stockpiling of weapons was right on.

RW claimed that Saddam was safely contained.

Except he was not. He was stockpiling weapons.

You know that's absolute bullshit don't you

 

[Campbell]

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

Thanks for rewriting history, it probably needed an update anyways.

Typical Republican. They catch it from Faux News. It goes on there 24/7.

Constantly bringing up Faux News is code for ""I'm a low-information voter who thinks "Glowbull Warming" is the biggest threat on Earth and I can't argue in a logical manner anymore""!

Screw Faux News and every regular watcher they have!

Fuck MSNBC.....and every faggot that actually believes half of the lies they pump out on a regular basis.

MSNBC and CNN tells more truth in an hour than all the Fox stations combined tell in 24 hours.

When somebody pays any attention to Fox they had just as well be getting their news from Lush Rambo

 

[Mudda]

Over ten years and he has made no moves outside his borders

We needed to send 5000 Americans to their deaths beause Saddam was diverting food money?

You claimed he was contained. I pointed out that the containment was failing.

Do you remember what he was diverting food money TO?

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

How is that failing?

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

He was diverting the Oil for Food Money to buy weapons in violation of the Sanctions which was a big part of the containment.

Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

Saddam was stockpiling weapons? You mean like the US does and so does pretty much every other country in the world? And given the fact they Iraq was invaded by a foreign army, I'd say that their stockpiling of weapons was right on.

RW claimed that Saddam was safely contained.

Except he was not. He was stockpiling weapons.

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

 

[Correll]

You claimed he was contained. I pointed out that the containment was failing.

Do you remember what he was diverting food money TO?

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

How is that failing?

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

He was diverting the Oil for Food Money to buy weapons in violation of the Sanctions which was a big part of the containment.

Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

Saddam was stockpiling weapons? You mean like the US does and so does pretty much every other country in the world? And given the fact they Iraq was invaded by a foreign army, I'd say that their stockpiling of weapons was right on.

RW claimed that Saddam was safely contained.

Except he was not. He was stockpiling weapons.

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

 

[Mudda]

How is that failing?

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

He was diverting the Oil for Food Money to buy weapons in violation of the Sanctions which was a big part of the containment.

Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

Saddam was stockpiling weapons? You mean like the US does and so does pretty much every other country in the world? And given the fact they Iraq was invaded by a foreign army, I'd say that their stockpiling of weapons was right on.

RW claimed that Saddam was safely contained.

Except he was not. He was stockpiling weapons.

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

 

[Correll]

He was diverting the Oil for Food Money to buy weapons in violation of the Sanctions which was a big part of the containment.

Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

Saddam was stockpiling weapons? You mean like the US does and so does pretty much every other country in the world? And given the fact they Iraq was invaded by a foreign army, I'd say that their stockpiling of weapons was right on.

RW claimed that Saddam was safely contained.

Except he was not. He was stockpiling weapons.

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

 

[Mudda]

Saddam was stockpiling weapons? You mean like the US does and so does pretty much every other country in the world? And given the fact they Iraq was invaded by a foreign army, I'd say that their stockpiling of weapons was right on.

RW claimed that Saddam was safely contained.

Except he was not. He was stockpiling weapons.

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.