Several good reasons for Iraq war/proof of WMD

[Sled Puller]

Re-evaluating Weapons of Mass Destruction



.



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

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998



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

- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. "

- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times

since 1983. "

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U. S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. "

- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. "

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998



"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies. "

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999



"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam

continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies. "

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. "

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. "

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



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

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. "

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002



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

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I 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



"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



"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

 

[loncray]

Personally, I'd love for them to find some real WMD's - start justifying all the American deaths so far - but it's looking more and more like the Iraqi's were faking everybody out - including their own leaders. Why didn't we wait for the UN guys to actually find WMD's before we attacked Iraq? Could it be that WMD's were only an excuse to launch an attack that was going to happen anyway? Ya think?

 

[Rman]

haven't we covered this? They weren't there, Bush lied. The facts prove that they had resources available to make them right after the UN lifted the sanctions.

 

[loncray]

I've never said Bush lied about WMD's, nor even that there aren't any there. I just think that the intelligence present didn't justify a preemptive war on another country, and it still doesn't. Had the UN guys actually found a germ lab, or weapons-grade uranium, or something of that sort, THEN I'd say we were justified in doing whatever we needed to do to remove that threat. We attacked a sovereign nation on the basis of removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction - and none have been found. Watch as the Administration starts spinning this - 'we actually attacked to stop brutality in Iraq', that sort of thing. WMD's were a politically acceptable excuse to attack, simple brutality was not. We attacked Afghanistan because of provable ties between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and it was absolutely justified. I simply don't think our attack on Iraq has been justified yet.

 

[dpuckett]

Fact of the matter is, the mid-easterners hate the U. S. and western civilization in general because of our religious tolerance and our personal freedom, esp women. AS long as we are free, we will be in danger of another attack. I agree with taking the fight to them, but at the same time, we need to be sure that they are intent on harming us. ANd with the current situation over there, I'd say most of them (at least gov't/ religious kooks) want to harm the United States. Better to lose only military than civilians as well in the process. How many did we kill in Afghanistan? I say we are still several hundred behind in the count, especially for being the lone Superpower in the world supposedly attacked out of the blue. Were it not for organized religion, and the self superiority complex each one has, the world would be a lot more peaceful and we'd all be better off. Rmember the Crusades a thousand years ago? Christianity at its finest hour.

 

[illflem]

Yankee Go Home

Who's leading the anti-war movement?



Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U. S. government. They excuse the enemy regime's aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration's ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration's claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd demands and bug out with whatever face-saving deal it can get. In past wars, Republicans accused these domestic opponents of sabotaging American morale and aiding the enemy. But in this war, Republicans aren't bashing the anti-war movement. They're leading it.



Last weekend, three of the top five Republicans in Congress--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas--went on television to discuss the war. Here's what they said.



1. The atrocities are America's fault. "Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians. " On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U. S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition.



2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault. "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area. " Nickles called NATO's prewar peace proposal to the Serbs "a very arrogant agreement" that "really caused this thing to escalate. "



3. Congress should not support the war. When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles --who had voted a month ago, along with 70 percent of the Senate GOP, not to support the NATO air campaign--said they wouldn't. Nickles questioned the propriety of "NATO's objectives," calling its goal of "access to all of Serbia ... ludicrous. " DeLay, meanwhile, voted not only against last week's House resolution authorizing Clinton to conduct the air war--which failed on a tie vote--but also in favor of legislation "directing the president ... to remove U. S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. " When asked whether he had lobbied his colleagues to defeat the resolution authorizing the air war, as had been reported, DeLay conceded that he had "talked to a couple of members during the vote" but claimed not to have swayed anyone since it was "a vote of conscience. "



Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time.



By William Saletan May 7, 1999

more here http://slate.msn.com/id/27730/



Now let me ask you conservatives this: Did you support Clinton on Kosovo? I didn't.

What makes Saddam Hussein any different than Milosevic?

 

[Rman]

Originally posted by illflem

Now let me ask you conservatives this: Did you support Clinton on Kosovo? I didn't.

What makes Saddam Hussein any different than Milosevic?

I did! I distinctly remember getting the call at 2 am either thanksgiving day or the day before and having to deploy.

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by illflem



Now let me ask you conservatives this: Did you support Clinton on Kosovo? I didn't.

What makes Saddam Hussein any different than Milosevic?

That question has been answwered numerous times in other threads. Even compring the two, is nuts.



Maybe if 9/11 would have happend before Clinton was throwing our troops willy nilly around, I would have supported the effort, if not the way he did it.



Bush has entered conflicts to WIN, to help eliminate this countrys enemys, Clinton was just paying lip service to the UN, and his socialist friends.

 

[Sled Puller]

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs





"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. "

- The Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG)



In just three months, the U. S. weapons inspection teams led by David Kay have made important discoveries, including:



A clandestine network of biological laboratories and safehouses maintained by Saddam Hussein's Intelligence Service.

A prison laboratory complex, possibly used for human testing of biological agents.

"Reference strains" of biological organisms concealed in scientists homes, including a live strain of deadly botulinum, and new research on Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, ricin, and aflatoxin.

Advanced design work on prohibited longer range missiles and covert capability to produce illegal SCUD missile propellant.

Newly documented links between Iraq and North Korea with documents detailing Iraq's attempt to buy equipment from North Korea to make missiles with ranges of up to 1,300 kilometers a clear violation of the UN Resolution limiting Iraq to missiles with a range of 150 kilometers or less.

Systematic efforts to sanitize or destroy documents, computers, equipment, and other materials related to WMD work.

_______________________________________________





More than enough evidence has been found to support the war. Anybody who can't see that, is blinded by their hatred for president Bush, nothing more, nothing less.



I have a feeling if we would have found 1000 ICBMs, pointed at us, with burning fuses, the other side would still insist that Saddam wasn't going to use them.

 

[NETim]

Originally posted by Sled Puller



I have a feeling if we would have found 1000 ICBMs, pointed at us, with burning fuses, the other side would still insist that Saddam wasn't going to use them.

Fuses!? FUSES!? We don't need no stinkin' fuses! I always thought they used Estes rocket motor lighters to get 'em up in the air. What I don't learn here!



And for the record, I have mixed emotions about the whole Kosovo thing. Horrible atrocities were occuring there to be sure, but I don't believe that US security was threatened in any way nor did we have any vital strategic interests in that area.



Same questions apply, like when are our troops coming home?



That should've been Europe's mess to clean up but as usual, they don't have the gumption. They're much better at criticizing... like usual.



Tim

 

[Champane Flight]

Difference

I was for the Yugoslav intervention, I call it that because of the fact the murdering, ethnic cleansing, and moving of people would still be going on if we didn't intervene. There was alter motive, no oil, no political gain, just for a stop to the killing.

And the fact Clinton had all of NATO and Russia with him on the intervention was a plus to this cause.



Saddam was a ruthless dictator, he killed his enemy's by the thousands, if they resisted him he killed them. If you went against Bush with guns and a plan to overthrow, don't you think you would die to?



Iraq with its military decimated by Desert Storm, great oil reserves, a central location in the middle east (for control of maximum number of axis of evil), and backup for Israel made it a perfect target. The fact it was in violation of UN sanctions or was building WMDs, none of which was a danger to the USA was beside the point. Perfect target for political, and monetary gain.



The political attitude of people that did not back Bushes war on Iraq was that of "If you don't back this you are anti-American, a traitor!" I even heard of medal of honor winners who went to be a part of a human shield in Iraq called traitors!



We have, without a shot fired on us, attacked a sovereign country. There is no Grey area here, no large terror network in Iraq (although they are starting to move in now),and no WMDs (this was a bluff to keep us out). We have become a large paranoid, aggressive, and much like our Allie (Israel) mired in a eye for an eye war that will do nothing but escalate. You can see what these tactics have done for peace in Israel!

 

[illflem]

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. " Gandhi

 

[Sled Puller]

CF,

Let me make this simple for you.



You are wrong.



No one with an ounce of common sense could possibly see your point of view as correct. No way.



I thank you and appreciate your comments, becuase it lets us see what we are up against. You have helped educate many on this board, and I hope you never leave.



Illflem,

If we would have taken an eye for an eye, the middle east would still be smouldering.

Gandhi can thank his lucky stars, we held back.

I never thought much of him. Terrible movie.

 

[Champane Flight]

Eye for an eye?

OK, if we go eye for an eye, how about 2996 dead on 9/11.

How about over 4000 in Afghanistan and 7000 dead in Iraq? Not enough blood? These were just civilian casualty's.