Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's always somebody else's fault to the lib. What intel did "the Republicans" have that Democrats didn't?Republicans wanted war so bad the Democrats voted for it and enabled W to invade Iraq.
Being against the wars in the middle east, I just wanted to say thanks for nothing
Democrats voted for it based on false intelligence.
For example. Bush was given intel that Iraq did not have the capacity to make nuclear weapons. Bush told Congress that Iraq DID have the capacity. He also sent a guy who hadn't worked for Saddam's nuclear program since 1991 called "curveball" to the Senate to tell everyone that Saddam DID have nuclear weapons capabilities. The guy hadn't even been in Iraq since 1994.
The Senate Report on Pre-War intelligence basically tells all that is needed, more or less
"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."
So the NIE itself was stuff that's made up, invented, twisted, whatever, to suit the needs of the govt. Then Bush went as ignored the NIE anyway.
Press | Intelligence Committee
"“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”"
"
“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.
“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.
“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again,” Rockefeller added. "
This is the US govt saying this.....
I could make a water tight case, it's not hard, just would take time. You should really know this stuff yourself. You elect these people, you should know what crap they're getting up to.
Democrats got the same intelligence, the difference is you hold only the Republicans accountable. I hold them both accountable
Democrats got the same intelligence as Bush? Really? You think all Congressmen got all intelligence? I don't think so.
Republicans wanted war so bad the Democrats voted for it and enabled W to invade Iraq.
Being against the wars in the middle east, I just wanted to say thanks for nothing
Democrats voted for it based on false intelligence.
LOL, you're not a Democrat, that's funny.
That intelligence came from W, it also came from Clinton, Kerry and the Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee. The two parties did that fiasco hand in hand, Holmes
Funny? I'm glad you're amused. I'm still not a Democrat. The fact is the US government has released reports on the intel of the pre-war period and found that Bush lied out of his arse so often the whole of Washington stank of his shit.
Intelligence isn't freely available you know. It's not like every Congressman gets all intelligence the CIA has. Bush gets access to most of it. Bush was given an NIE report which said they didn't know about biological weapons and knew he didn't have nuclear capabilities. Yet still stuck a guy in front of the Senate to say they basically had nuclear capabilities.
They still twisted everything that came forwards.
I'm not defending the Democrats. They should have done more research, they shouldn't have believed everything. But they did. And they voted based on false intelligence. That is a fact.
Why do you keep repeating Democrat lies if you aren't one?. And you're not "defending them?" What the fuck?
What lies do you think I'm repeating? I don't remember repeating any lies.
I'm not defending Democrats because I'm a Democrat. Jeez, your view of the world is "you're either a democrat or a republic". If I find stuff I don't like I'll gladly expose the Democrats. However this is about BUSH.
Bush happens not to be a Democrat. So why the hell do I need to attack the Democrats? Yes, they voted for war when they shouldn't have. Okay, there? DO you see? I FUCKING ATTACKED THEM. Are you happy now?
Jeez this is fucking pathetic.
Rumsfeld was SecDef for all of 6 months before the war.Considering how chummy Rumsfeld and Saddam were it should come as no surprise when Saddam stopped playing ball Rummy saw the writing on the wall and moved to correct his colossal fuckup.
We need to stop pretending the lesser of two evils is anything but evil. Instead of replacing one douchebag with another douchebag who sucks our dick we need to put in actual western leaders and replace Muslim governments with secular ones.
We didn't put kinder, gentler Nazis in the post-war German government after WW2. If we take over a country, why the fuck are we just letting them replace what we removed with more of the same?
That's some serious Imperialism you're talking there.
Gonna take a lot of killing to do.
You really up for that?
Am up for reducing our nuclear aresenal a few at a time. Better to rip a bandage off quickly than slowly. Dragging this out isn't doing anyone any good nor is it stopping it. We won WWII by killing the enemy. All the enemy, their cities, their civilans and pets. I see nothing wrong with recognizing an undesireable group of people and eliminating them. I realize what that sounds like, but if we're being honest, if the situation were reversed, they'd nuke us and not think twice about it.
Well, nuclear weapons are not yet on the table.
But if it does come to that, secular government won't cut it. YOu don't fight a Religion with a Secular Government. We tried that in Iraq and it didn't work.
You need another Idea to replace it. Or to undermine it.
We need to get China and Russia on board to use nukes. EU's irrelevant.
But I see big chunks of desert designated as ISIS controlled that'd work well for tactical nuclear strikes.
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 this
May 2003[edit]
A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[9]
Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.
THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.
I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.
FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.
Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.
Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?
SO, that's the game.
I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.
Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?
Rhetorical question that.
And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".
Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.
YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.
A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.
Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?
A & B weren't even reasons, and still aren't, for destroying Iraq. C was proven to be false. No "my" judgement, it's a fact.A) FlimsyI'm saying that you can't give me a valid reason for GW's invasion of Iraq.The point is, you are only spouting your opinion. YOU say there were no reasons. What you mean, in my opinion, is there were no reasons that would make you agree with the war, which is OK for you to think that but again, that is just your opinion. Those in congress who should be in the know with all the information available thought differently then what YOU think and for that matter what I think we should have done.
So, if you think it such a bad decision are you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton who apparently knew less about Saddam then you did?
A) 1991 Cease Fire.... NOTE it was a "CEASE FIRE" NOT a peace agreement. Meant any violation by Saddam would mean resumption of the War.
B) Of course YOU never care for the 2 million children that would have starved by now because Saddam wouldn't certify WMDs were destroyed.
C) Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
B) Flimsier
C) Flimsiest.
Nothing valid that warrants invading Iraq and destroying it. And those weren't even the official reasons. EPIC FAIL.
Who are you to make that judgment?
The President and the Congress of the UNited States of the time disagreed with you and found it valid.
YOur present disagreement years after the fact is irrelevant.
May 2003[edit]
A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[9]
Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 2004[edit]
An August 2004 poll showed that two-thirds (67%) of the American public believe the U.S. went to war based on incorrect assumptions.[10] The morale of the US troops has been subject to variations. Important issues are the vulnerability of the Humvee vehicles, and the great number of wounded and maimed soldiers
So all you show is that the GOP Neocons are more effective liars...
Which party 100% voted for war against Iraq?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
Republicans wanted war so bad the Democrats voted for it and enabled W to invade Iraq.
Being against the wars in the middle east, I just wanted to say thanks for nothing
The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.
They are liars like that.
Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.
FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.
Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.
Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?
SO, that's the game.
I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.
Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?
Rhetorical question that.
And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".
Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.
YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.
A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.
Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?
WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.
But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.
Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.
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 this
Watch this
When listing what Democrats had to say about Iraq, you always seem to leave off what our President had to say about the invasion. I'm sure if he had supported it, he would be first on your list
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.
Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.
Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?
SO, that's the game.
I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.
Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?
Rhetorical question that.
And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".
Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.
YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.
A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.
Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?
WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.
But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.
Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.
Hans Blix said that if given more time, he could prove there was no WMDs
Bush invaded before he could provide that proof
Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.
Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.
Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?
SO, that's the game.
I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.
Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?
Rhetorical question that.
And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".
Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.
YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.
A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.
Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?
WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.
But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.
Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.
Hans Blix said that if given more time, he could prove there was no WMDs
Bush invaded before he could provide that proof
I can't believe no one so far recognized the origin of the letter in the OP from those who signed it! Does "The Project for a New American Century" (PNAC) ring any bells. You know, that neoconservative bunch of maniacs who maneuvered the US into the Iraq War with Cheney as #2 in the administration and that milksop sock puppet Bush standing by with Cheney's hand up his ass! (Note Dick Cheney's name in the list of signatories of the OP's letter)
Yeah, that PNAC! All you neocons and other Bush apologists just keep going with your standard crap about how Clinton was the cause of every ill and keep your collective heads up your collective arse!
Ever hear of "The Vulcans"? Eight of the nine Bush tutors who coached Bush from 1999 until the 2000 election, because Bush was too fucking dumb to find the Pacific Ocean on a globe or map, were PNAC card carrying members. Condi Rice, his future SecState was the only one who had not officially joined PNAC. They were all rewarded with jobs in the Bush cabal in various foreign affairs advisory positions, including Scooter Libby, Cheney's fall guy. Also, of the 25 who signed PNAC's opening "Statement of Principles" 10 served in the Bush 43 PNAC infested administration, with a total of 28 members of PNAC serving in his administration over the full eight years.
Bush SURROUNDED himself with PNAC neoconservatives! Gosh, what could go wrong with that set up?
Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.
Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?
SO, that's the game.
I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.
Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?
Rhetorical question that.
And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".
Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.
YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.
A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.
Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?
WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.
But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.
Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.
Hans Blix said that if given more time, he could prove there was no WMDs
Bush invaded before he could provide that proof
So why would Saddam continue to let 144,000 children starve per year when all Saddam need do is certify WMDs were destroyed?
All the civilized Western world knew that NO leader would allow 144,000 children do starve...so naturally Saddam would not also????
Of course you NEVER CARED about those 144,000 children starving did you.
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!
Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.
