WH responds to Cheney

[Zander]

For those of you with short term memory issues.....

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

 

[Rinata]

in response to a question on September 17, 2003, Bush stated: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks]."

Oh, really??? That is such crap!!

In a March 21 USA Today article, staff writer David Jackson reported uncritically President Bush's denial during a March 20 appearance in Cleveland, Ohio that his administration had ever claimed a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 terrorist attacks in making the case for war with Iraq. In addition, the article neglected to report that, in his response to an audience member's question, Bush created a straw-man argument by misrepresenting the substance of the question, saying, "I was careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America." In contrast, National Public Radio (NPR) White House correspondent Don Gonyea reported during the March 20 broadcast of All Things Considered that Bush had "reframed" the question, making it "more narrow" in order to avoid addressing the charge that the administration claimed a broad link between Hussein and the 9-11 attacks. As other news outlets -- including The Washington Post and Knight Ridder -- have noted, Bush claimed such a connection existed, often generally and specifically in a letter to Congress at the start of the war. In addition, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that Iraqi intelligence officers met with 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks, despite no confirmed reports of such a meeting, and also asserted that war in Iraq would constitute "a major blow" against the 9-11 terrorists.

Jackson reported that an audience member asked Bush to address three of his administration's pre-war claims -- in Jackson's words, "that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, sponsored the 9/11 terrorists, and had purchased nuclear-bomb materials." Jackson then simply and uncritically reported only part of Bush's reply: "I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say he was a state sponsor of terror."

Vice President Cheney has also repeatedly linked Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. On the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" The vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. On the September 14, 2003, edition of Meet the Press, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

USA Today uncritically reported Bush's denial that he linked Iraq with 9-11 attacks | Media Matters for America

You people really need to be challenged every single time you don't tell the truth. How many times on tv did Bush link Iraq to 9/11??? All the time. Where were you?? With your head in the sand, sick, in Europe, what???

 

[CMike]

in response to a question on September 17, 2003, Bush stated: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks]."

That's only part of the story. The other parts have been repeated many times. No, Mike, that does not wash your man or his administration clean.

Clean? I am proud of what Pres. Bush did.

He is the first US president to take the fight to the terrorists and their state sponsors.

No other president has had the balls to do that.

I am in no way apologizing for any of his actions, I am thrilled that he took them.

 

[CMike]

in response to a question on September 17, 2003, Bush stated: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks]."

Oh, really??? That is such crap!!

In a March 21 USA Today article, staff writer David Jackson reported uncritically President Bush's denial during a March 20 appearance in Cleveland, Ohio that his administration had ever claimed a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 terrorist attacks in making the case for war with Iraq. In addition, the article neglected to report that, in his response to an audience member's question, Bush created a straw-man argument by misrepresenting the substance of the question, saying, "I was careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America." In contrast, National Public Radio (NPR) White House correspondent Don Gonyea reported during the March 20 broadcast of All Things Considered that Bush had "reframed" the question, making it "more narrow" in order to avoid addressing the charge that the administration claimed a broad link between Hussein and the 9-11 attacks. As other news outlets -- including The Washington Post and Knight Ridder -- have noted, Bush claimed such a connection existed, often generally and specifically in a letter to Congress at the start of the war. In addition, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that Iraqi intelligence officers met with 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks, despite no confirmed reports of such a meeting, and also asserted that war in Iraq would constitute "a major blow" against the 9-11 terrorists.

Jackson reported that an audience member asked Bush to address three of his administration's pre-war claims -- in Jackson's words, "that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, sponsored the 9/11 terrorists, and had purchased nuclear-bomb materials." Jackson then simply and uncritically reported only part of Bush's reply: "I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say he was a state sponsor of terror."

Vice President Cheney has also repeatedly linked Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. On the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" The vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. On the September 14, 2003, edition of Meet the Press, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

USA Today uncritically reported Bush's denial that he linked Iraq with 9-11 attacks | Media Matters for America

You people really need to be challenged every single time you don't tell the truth. How many times on tv did Bush link Iraq to 9/11??? All the time. Where were you?? With your head in the sand, sick, in Europe, what???

Once again, for the English as a second lanuage crowd...

in response to a question on September 17, 2003, Bush stated: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks].

Try and read slowly.

Pres. Bush and Cheney both said that there is no evidence that that had that Hussein did 911. However, Hussein did have ties with Al Qaida. Hussein did support terrorist groups. Therefore, eliminating Hussein hurts, Al Qaida and other terror groups, because Hussein had ties with them.

 

[The T]

in response to a question on September 17, 2003, Bush stated: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks]."

That's only part of the story. The other parts have been repeated many times. No, Mike, that does not wash your man or his administration clean.

Clean? I am proud of what Pres. Bush did.

He is the first US president to take the fight to the terrorists and their state sponsors.

No other president has had the balls to do that.

I am in no way apologizing for any of his actions, I am thrilled that he took them.

Indeed. Bush gets high marks from me in this regard. On other issues and in particuliar domestic spending? He wasn't any better than any DemocRAT.

 

[CMike]

Cheney: No link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11 - CNN.com

"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. ... [It] is, without question, a fact."

Cheney restated his claim that "there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. It's not something I made up. ... We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor -- a state sponsor -- of terror. It's not my judgment. That was the judgment of our [intelligence community] and State Department."
The former vice president said in 2004 that the evidence was "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Hussein's regime in Iraq, and that media reports suggesting that the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said at the time.

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

On Monday, though, Cheney identified former CIA Director George Tenet as the "prime source of information" on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Tenet "testified, if you go back and check the record, in the fall of [2002] before the Senate Intelligence Committee -- in open session -- that there was a relationship," Cheney said.

 

[CMike]

Testimony of CIA Director Tenet in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee

Behind Closed Doors

Levin: And relative to Iraq, a couple other questions: Do we--do you have any evidence that Saddam Hussein or his agents played a role in the September 11th terrorist attacks or that he has links to al Qaeda?


Tenet: Well, as I note in my statement, there is no doubt that there have been contacts and linkages to the al Qaeda organization. As to where we are in September 11th, the jury's out. And as I said carefully in my statement, it would be a mistake to dismiss the possibility of state sponsorship, whether Iranian or Iraqi, and we'll see where the evidence takes us. But I want you to think about al Qaeda as a front company that mixes and matches its capabilities. The distinctions between Sunni and Shia that have traditionally divided terrorist groups are not distinctions you should make anymore, because there is a common interest against the United States and its allies in this region, and they will seek capability wherever they can get it.

...Consider the statements below. They are provided without attribution. (Guess who made the statemetns below?)


1. There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.

2. The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

3. 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.

4. 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

5. I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

6. The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them.

7. The question is not whether we will disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction but how.


All of these statements are those of Senate Democrats. The first three were made by Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The fourth, by Hillary Clinton. The fifth, by Joe Lieberman. The sixth, by John Edwards. The seventh, by Ted Kennedy. And the list could go on.

 

[CMike]

Cheney on "Meet The Press"

MTP Transcript for Sept. 10 - Meet the Press- msnbc.com

VICE PRES. CHENEY: At this stage, the focus is over here on al-Qaeda and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein is bottled up at this point.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

...VICE PRES. CHENEY: We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.

...VICE PRES. CHENEY: That’s a different issue. Now, there’s a question of whether or not al-Qaeda, or whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11. There’s a separate—apart from that’s the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet’s testimony before the Senate Intel Commission, an open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern of relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

 

[The T]

Testimony of CIA Director Tenet in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee

Behind Closed Doors

Levin: And relative to Iraq, a couple other questions: Do we--do you have any evidence that Saddam Hussein or his agents played a role in the September 11th terrorist attacks or that he has links to al Qaeda?


Tenet: Well, as I note in my statement, there is no doubt that there have been contacts and linkages to the al Qaeda organization. As to where we are in September 11th, the jury's out. And as I said carefully in my statement, it would be a mistake to dismiss the possibility of state sponsorship, whether Iranian or Iraqi, and we'll see where the evidence takes us. But I want you to think about al Qaeda as a front company that mixes and matches its capabilities. The distinctions between Sunni and Shia that have traditionally divided terrorist groups are not distinctions you should make anymore, because there is a common interest against the United States and its allies in this region, and they will seek capability wherever they can get it.

...Consider the statements below. They are provided without attribution. (Guess who made the statemetns below?)


1. There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.

2. The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

3. 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.

4. 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

5. I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

6. The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them.

7. The question is not whether we will disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction but how.


All of these statements are those of Senate Democrats. The first three were made by Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The fourth, by Hillary Clinton. The fifth, by Joe Lieberman. The sixth, by John Edwards. The seventh, by Ted Kennedy. And the list could go on.

Yep. but there still seems to be a period of denial, even now that the above ever uttered these statements...Why? Political expediency? Or memory loss?

 

[Rinata]

Did you not get that they backed off when the criticism started?? What is wrong with you?? And you criticize people that like Obama and say that we just worship him?? I've never understood that, but I think I'm beginning to.

That is how you people feel about Bush and Cheney, and you project that onto libs. You're all nuts, I swear to God you are. Go put fresh flowers next to the pictures you undoubtedly have on a table in your living room of Bush and Cheney. You give me the creeps.

 

[CMike]

Intentional memory loss.

 

[CMike]

Did you not get that they backed off when the criticism started?? What is wrong with you?? And you criticize people that like Obama and say that we just worship him?? I've never understood that, but I think I'm beginning to.

That is how you people feel about Bush and Cheney, and you project that onto libs. You're all nuts, I swear to God you are. Go put fresh flowers next to the pictures you undoubtedly have on a table in your living room of Bush and Cheney. You give me the creeps.

 

[The T]

Intentional memory loss.

In other terms? Political Expediency.

 

[The T]

Did you not get that they backed off when the criticism started?? What is wrong with you?? And you criticize people that like Obama and say that we just worship him?? I've never understood that, but I think I'm beginning to.

That is how you people feel about Bush and Cheney, and you project that onto libs. You're all nuts, I swear to God you are. Go put fresh flowers next to the pictures you undoubtedly have on a table in your living room of Bush and Cheney. You give me the creeps.

In other words? Folks like you hammered away at Bush/Cheney for the better part of eight (8) years, and NOW you deny it ever happened, as Obama has had to adhere (by default) to those same principles all, or in part?

And in light of that has you in a tizzy and also extolling Obama's virtue for being forced to admit that he has no other recourse but to follow the same path? And therefore you give Obama credit for the same? (Forced, but the same)?

I would dare say that as another poster applied unto you cuckoo is quite appropo.

 

[CMike]

More of CIA Director Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee

Let me be clear. Saddam remains a threat. He is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War. Today he maintains his vice grip on the levers of power through a pervasive intelligence and security apparatus, and even his reduced military force, which is less than half of its pre-war size, remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition and threatening Iraq's neighbors.

As I said earlier, we continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with al Qaeda. Their ties may be limited by diverging ideologies, but the two sides mutual antipathy towards the United States and the Saudi royal family suggest that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.

...Iraq continues to build and expand an infrastructure capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad is expanding its civilian chemical industries in ways that could be diverted quickly into CW production. We believe Baghdad continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities that exceed the restrictions imposed by U .N. resolutions. With substantial foreign assistance, it could flight- test a longer-range ballistic missile within the next five years.

We believe that Saddam never abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Iraq maintains a significant number of nuclear scientists, program documentation, and probably some dual-use manufacturing infrastructure that could support a reinvigorated nuclear weapons program. Baghdad's access to foreign expertise could support a rejuvenated program. But our major near-term concern is the possibility that Saddam might gain access to fissile material.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Someome remains unaware of the MSMs march to war in Iraq for Bush.

Remember the firing of Phil Donahue ( who was questioning the evidence on TV before the war) when he had the highest rated show?

Remember how NO one would make it clear to the public that Sadam had nothing to do with 911 even though there was NO evidence he he was connected to 911.

Remember how 70% of Americans thought that is what the admin was telling them.

Remember how you were treated by the right when you tried to tell them there was no connection?

The MSM would not report about 80% of what was happening in the lead up to the war.

That is why so many get their news from the internet now, the MSM nearly killed its viability by being in the Bush pocket.

Now you guys complain that they are not working hard to tear Obama a new one every day?

You have no leg to stand on with this stupid MSM bullshit rap.

Bush told the world that Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks on 9-11-01. I certainly knew this, I don't understand what anyone else was thinking.

Just look at some of the left wing nuts and RINO's who post here Ollie....it's really not too hard to see why or how they were duped by the DailyKOS and DUh.

True.

 

[Rinata]

Did you not get that they backed off when the criticism started?? What is wrong with you?? And you criticize people that like Obama and say that we just worship him?? I've never understood that, but I think I'm beginning to.

That is how you people feel about Bush and Cheney, and you project that onto libs. You're all nuts, I swear to God you are. Go put fresh flowers next to the pictures you undoubtedly have on a table in your living room of Bush and Cheney. You give me the creeps.

In other words? Folks like you hammered away at Bush/Cheney for the better part of eight (8) years, and NOW you deny it ever happened, as Obama has had to adhere (by default) to those same principles all, or in part?

And in light of that has you in a tizzy and also extolling Obama's virtue for being forced to admit that he has no other recourse but to follow the same path? And therefore you give Obama credit for the same? (Forced, but the same)?

I would dare say that as another poster applied unto you cuckoo is quite appropo.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Gee, that's a big freakin' surprise. However, I'm sure that's intentional.

In any case, I am denying nothing. Bush and Cheney are liars. The worst duo ever in charge of this countrty, including Nixon and Agnew. They had a personal agenda for going to Iraq. That was their first priority, above what was good for this country.

Is that good enough for you???

 

[CMike]

I concur. They read something in a left wing blog, which is repeated on CNN or some other liberal media outlet and they just assume its true. They never question anything.

They are like the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica- "By your command.."

 

[CMike]

Did you not get that they backed off when the criticism started?? What is wrong with you?? And you criticize people that like Obama and say that we just worship him?? I've never understood that, but I think I'm beginning to.

That is how you people feel about Bush and Cheney, and you project that onto libs. You're all nuts, I swear to God you are. Go put fresh flowers next to the pictures you undoubtedly have on a table in your living room of Bush and Cheney. You give me the creeps.

In other words? Folks like you hammered away at Bush/Cheney for the better part of eight (8) years, and NOW you deny it ever happened, as Obama has had to adhere (by default) to those same principles all, or in part?

And in light of that has you in a tizzy and also extolling Obama's virtue for being forced to admit that he has no other recourse but to follow the same path? And therefore you give Obama credit for the same? (Forced, but the same)?

I would dare say that as another poster applied unto you cuckoo is quite appropo.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Gee, that's a big freakin' surprise. However, I'm sure that's intentional.

In any case, I am denying nothing. Bush and Cheney are liars. The worst duo ever in charge of this countrty, including Nixon and Agnew. They had a personal agenda for going to Iraq. That was their first priority, above what was good for this country.

Is that good enough for you???

How precisely did they lie in your opinion?

1) I already proved that not only did they not say that there was evidence that linked Hussein doing 911, they said the opposite.

2) They said that Hussein had WMD which your entire democrat leadership said, as well,, even before Bush took office

I am at a loss where exactly did they lie?

 

[CMike]

Just a little reminder, since it gives me pleasure to do so..

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

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

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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

"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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"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