Weapons of mass Destruction and Democrats

Mazuko

If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR OIL--then read this and, if you are the fairminded person that I believe you to be-- the how are the democrats basing so much of their campain on slinging trash at Bush?



"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 USA 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

"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

"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 a pace 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

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE
ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR OIL??? Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy!!!

BluntmaN

What if I am not a democrat can I still believe that he lied?

raid517

Lol that is completely distorting the picture. Clinton never openly advocated mass scale invasion. For him 'any means' meant the UN and sanctions - and when Saddam didn't comply they would send a few planes or missiles over there and try to bomb his house.

There was a general acceptance at the time that the cost - both financially and in terms of the long term commitment and the lives that would be lost - and because it may serve to alienate America further in the eyes of the Arab world - that it was far better to practice containment than to go for all out war. After all containment had won the cold war - so why not this one? I'm just thankful Bush and his buddies weren't around when the cold war was on going, otherwise I doubt that we would all still be here.

As to whether Bush lied, you want to read up on the Office of Special Plans mate. This is no gooks and spooks conspirators club - it is real, it existed and it was officially sanctioned by President Bush. Now whether they lied, or pressured the CIA into producing evidence that they could use to convince everyone else to agree to what they wanted to do, isn't really here nor there. The bottom line is that the OSP existed prior to September the 11th and had always had Iraq in its sight, long before there was any genuine concern that America could be the target of WMDs.

So why was all this planned? What was it all for? Well I'm not going to get into that, we have gone over that subject a million times on these threads already. My own views are fairly well known - and no doubt, unless Bush appears on TV an openly says that he lied to you (and even then I doubt that you would accept it) you will continue to believe in his absolute innocence.

Perhaps only history will tell us who is correct.

GJ

BluntmaN

Yeah I was reading about this in a Time magazine but I dont remember which issue. It was an article about how Donald Rumsfeld made this task force whose primary objective was to read intelligence reports "cut off" the parts that talked about the existence of WMD in Iraq and compile "special" reports. It contained the whole story about Ramsfeld being in charge of a company associated with some Iraqi liberation lobby. I dont remember all of it I read it right after xmass.

raid517

Well the OSP was a 'special task force' consisting of some of the highest level members of the Bush administration, who's primary remit, was to dig up evidence, no matter how obscure - even evidence that had previously been discounted - and kick it back down to the CIA for further 'examination'. When the CIA came up with something that didn't look damming enough in proving the case for war, the OSP was tasked to dig something out to add to it, or to change the wording to make it look even more damming and to pressure senior CIA operative into providing information (no mater how slim) that Bush could use to make his case for war to the American people. Those CIA operatives who disagreed - or who indeed openly protested that the Bush administration was attempting to politicize the CIA - were either bullied into complying by those loyal to the administration (namely George Tenet) or were eventually forced to retire. The whole plan was that when the shit hit the fan, the Bush administration could always plead that they were only able to act on the intelligence they were given, despite the fact that it was the Bush government (and the OSP in particular), who were given the responsibility of making sure the CIA produced the 'right kind of intelligence'. If it didn't fit the bill of what they wanted to hear, they simply rejected it.

I am not certain I know why all of this pressure was applied by the Bush administration on the CIA - but clearly President Bush is by no means blameless in this.

Hopefully if American democracy is still worth anything, this will all come out in the inquiry.

GJ

bird chest

I stil don't see how you guys think the gov. should have found the weapons by now. Could you imagine trying to find one vile of anthrax on your block or your city? I probably would never find it. But this is not a city or a block this is an entire country!!!

BluntmaN

Actually a vial of anthrax is not enough, a galon of it is not enough. What the US,UK forces need to find is enough chemical or biological agents to be used as an offensive weapon. This has some implications both good and bad for your arguement. Finding a vial of anthrax is not going to make the case that it was inteded to be offensivly used as a weapon. Finding a LAB that can produce anthrax or mustard gas then we are talking. Finding a SCUD missle with a warhead designed for chemical/biological warfare then you are in business. It is not a vial they are looking for it is weapons, labs, missile, stockpiles. These things do not vanish off the face of the Earth especialy since most of the people responsible for creating, moving and using the weapons are either in custody or are working with the occupation forces.

Roadee

Actually......ALL Scud missiles are designed for carrying CW, and they did find some and destroyed some during the war.

They already knew about most of the labs that were able to produce the weapons......found during the UN inspections.....and they found more after the war......to include mobile labs......with traces of CW.

It only takes a sample to be able to make a stockpile, the UN was unable to find ALOT of stuff that was on there list. Iraq says they got rid of it, the UN inspectors never took it off of the list since they did not organize and supervise the destruction. Only speculation of what happened too.......or where these items have ended up are what's left.

Factual statements make for a great conversation and debate. Opinions are helpful in making your facts become your personal stance on a given subject. But sadly.........BS........is still just BS

raid517

Well to me that is just a demonstration of how effective propaganda really is, particularly when both the British and American governments have now more or less officially given up the ghost and stated that they doubt WMDs will ever be found. It seems rather incredulous then, for anyone here to continue to believe that they ever will be. But then again - as I said, I guess you can never really underestimate the power of propoganda...

@Roadee, man you at least occasionally (sometimes more often than others) can sound quite reasonable. But if you will recall - and I can point you to the news article if you want - what they actually found was a bunch of empty shell casings left over from the 80's which 'in theory' could have been filled with chemical warfare agents. But extensive UN tests found that they contained no traces of any chemical agents whatsoever. Now the fact that they had some shell casings left over from the 80's that could have been filled with chemical warfare agents is hardly a surprise to anyone, since we are all too aware of the way Saddam had used these against the Iranians and the Kurds, from 1980 to 1991. (There is also the sticky topic of where he got the technology to develop these - but oh well - let's not get into that again right now).

Moreover some chemical facilities were destroyed by the UN - but that was in the 90's - which is why the UN were pretty cock eyed sure at the time that they had destroyed everything. (The actual claim was that they believed that they had got most of the stuff - and the rest could have been put down to poor record keeping, or over exaggeration on behalf of the Iraqis - which they may have had motivation to do if they needed to lie to impress their bosses). And no not all Scud missiles were "designed to carry CWs". What they were designed to do was carry a warhead. Whatever that warhead contained is irrelevant - it could have been high explosives, it could have been CW, it could have been a H'Bomb. But whether anyone was smart enough to design a warhead that was small enough and able to fit on top of a Scud is quite another matter. So far no one has been able to find any.

If you found some, maybe you should have stashed them away for a rainy day - and possibly you could have been in a position to help President Bush out of the predicament he now finds himself in.

As for the mobile labs - as I recall, they turned out to be nothing more than a couple of trucks used for mixing the rocket fuel for some of Iraq's ancient SAM missiles, because it was too volatile and too dangerous to keep them fueled all the time. (Some other trucks that were found were used for producing hydrogen to fill artillery balloons - a claim later backed up by US weapons inspectors own tests. Either that or they were probably no more than a couple of Ice Cream trucks... The bottom line is that this is exactly the sort of obscure stuff that the OSP were tasked to dig up - even when no one else gave any kind of real credence to it - they were told to stick bells and whistles on it and present it as viable evidence to the American people.

Still I guess they managed to excel themselves - as long after the OSP and the whole WMD deal has lost any sense of credibility and our own leaders have stopped trying to sell us on the imminent (or even potential) danger that Iraq supposedly presented - it is really quite fascinating to consider the number of people who continue to believe everything they were told.

I guess (for me at least) it shows how it is possible for governments to do almost anything - so long as you can convince the people that what you are doing is just. Why worry about the truth, when all you need is the right kind of publicity?

If you want to learn more about the OSP - and how active they were in shaping the intelligence that they presented to you, watch this video. You may need Real Player Alternative 1.20 to watch it, which is avaialable from here .

GJ

Roadee

"If you found some, maybe you should have stashed them away for a rainy day - and possibly you could have been in a position to help President Bush out of the predicament he now finds himself in."





I am still laughing my ass off on that one!!! You get bonus points on that one bud~!

By the way.....I am basing my comments above off of first person accounts from what some of my friends have actually seen and been involved with......not something I seen on the news or read in a political report, but from troops on the ground.....in Iraq since this began. Supplying you with pictures is not possible, nor is documented proof. So take it or leave it....makes no difference....it's all good.

Something that you may want to consider/think about. Since we are coming into an election, you will start seeing things get produced out of thin air. Bush pulls something out of his ass every time his ratings fall below a certain point. This is going to be an interesting year!!

OFF TOPIC: Oh.....and I cant stand Bush or any of his cabinet members......never could......never will, and dont pay any attention to what they say, only what they do......as it is usually BS.

my .02

bird chest

Point takin but they did find labs with traces of the chemicals in it, traces in the river, gas masks, missiles, enough rpgs to man everyperson in Iraq and many other things. Just because the media does not talk about these things does not mean they have not been found.

But a vile of anthrax could kill 1000 people!

bird chest

It is called a political move he wants to keep voters so

Ok and all your ideas are completley origional and came from no where but yourself. I hate when people post this stupid stuff. I do think for myself and just because I or anybody else came to a different conclusiont then you does not mean we are close minded. If you really read your statement more closely it gets even dumber. To abreviate it it reads this "Anyone who does not think like me does not think for themself." Hmmm...

I am not a big bush fan but I do think what he did in Iraq was right. I would much rather have a different pres in but he is the best I feel we got right now.

digerati

Except for me of course, the best candidate ever!

Roadee

Say what????????

digerati

You wouldn't vote for me? What if I promised to give everyone puppies?

raid517

Well what can I say, watch the video and if you can still find love in your heart for him then that's fair enough - but I am all out of sympathy for you if you do. There comes a time when you just have to face reality - and if you are prepared to do this, even you can't go on pretending anymore.

I certainly don't claim to have any monopoly on reality - but I at least retain the ability to know when someone is spinning me a line.

But I am not saying you are incapable of thinking for yourself, what I am saying is that clearly you were duped. Hopefully you have enough sense and insight to recognize the difference.

And @ ^_^ man if I was in the US I would vote for you - or at least I would certainly be tempted to vote for anyone else except this guy.

But Oh well, clearly some folks think that having the wool pulled over their eyes by their leaders is a good and acceptable thing. That's their lookout I guess.

Best regards,

GJ

raid517

@Roadee with regard to your friends finding CW 'stock piles'. There were initial results that some suspicious barrels had been found - but that is because some of the front line ground troops are issued with tests that are designed to react aggressively to any potentially hazardous chemical agents - which includes a wide range of chemicals that would normally be considered as no more than simple irritants. (Like a whole bunch of paint strippers and weedkillers etc. that carry warnings that say 'avoid contact with skin'). The official purpose of this is to err on caution on behalf of the troops, since it is best to avoid all potential for harm in these situations, if at all possible. However any subsequent tests have to be carried out under much more rigorous conditions.

In the case of any alleged CW's found in Iraq, this means that when samples are taken (both by official UN inspectors and America's own hand picked inspectors) any samples found have to be submitted to 3 separate independent (and highly respected) labs, which specialize in chemical and biological weapons detection. This is because in science, in order for a result to be considered accurate, it must also be considered to be 'repeatable'. This means that different people in different parts of the world, working independently, should always be able to obtain the same results.

In each case that was found where 'suspicious material' had been detected in the field, the tests that were subsequently carried out by these three independent labs all came up completely blank. So far all that has been found is an assortment of dyes, inks, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, solvents - and a bunch of other stuff that unsurprisingly perhaps was associated with oil production. However since you may well doubt my sources, I will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions and to take your pick from the sources that are available.

There ain't no spin here, just cold hard reality. Maybe some of the other folks here want to go on pretending - or maybe they simply refuse to believe that they have been fooled - but whatever way you look at it, it won't be too much longer before it becomes impossible even for them to go on deluding themselves.

GJ

bird chest

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html

I don't know about you but when officials are telling the US that weapons are here and there and they end up missing... The weapons Iraq had could easily be in Syria, destroyed, or moved and hidden. I have talked to some military people who are involved a little bit over in Iraq and they told me that it is pretty certain that there are wmd's in Iraq. But they said it would take a long time to find them. So if I was Bush and I knew that in all likley hood that the wmd's might not appear for a while I would do what he has done (then if they find them he is still good it is a win win situation). Has he out right admitted that there is nothing over there I do not think so but if he does please call me on it. But back to the source lets just assume that the plant is not a weapon factory still they have Iraqs military telling them that this stuff exists. In the end if no weapons are found and Saddam truly did not have them then Saddam is the dumbest man ever!!!!!!!!!

raid517

Amazing, truly amazing...There are now six separate inquiries in the US alone - and there have already been two in the UK all asking why no WMDs were found. Blair, Bush, Powell, Condoleezza Rice - absolutely everybody who pushed this originally - have all now said openly that they doubt any WMDs will be found. The chief handpicked weapons inspector that Bush personally appointed to find evidence of WMDs, has unequivocally said that there are no WMDS and moreover, that there was no program whatsoever through out the 90's to develop any either. How can you stash a bunch of WMDs away that absolutely anyone who matters now agrees probably never existed? Just what will it take for you to accept what those who started this whole mess, have clearly accepted already?

No one but a few far right loons are seriously proposing that you could ship an entire WMD program, all evidence of it and anyone who remotely knew anything about it off to Syria. All that is is a desire on behalf of some right wing supporters of Israel, to size the opportunity to subdue Syria. There is zero credible intelligence, even with the majority of the world's spy satellites and radio listening stations beaming down on Iraq during the war, that anything close to that occurred. Not one of the countless technicians and scientists that have been interviewd by UN and US weapons inspectors since the war ended, have ever suggested this. If they had, that would undoubtedly be Bush's golden ticket - a cast iron gilt lined way out of the sticky situation he now finds himself in. If Bush thought that this was a possible way out, don't you think he would be pushing it for all its worth?

The problem with this war was that it was started with very slim evidence to prove it was either justified or needed. You will undoubtedly start with even slimmer evidence if you ever tried to make a case against Syria. Indeed while the evidence against Iraq was at best slim, I think you could easily say that the evidence against Syria is pretty much non existant. So what do you propose to do? Just go on stumbling from country to country until you find something you think you can use?

Do you really think that is an intelligent way to go about things?

It isn't clever of Bush to admit that no WMDs will be found. If there was even still the slightest prospect of it, I think his best chance would be to make as much of it as possible. The longer it takes to find any, the dumber he looks. He looks especially dumb when he admits he sent US troops to war on a false premise, costing many young American lives and landing ordinary American citizens with a trillion dollar tax bill. Put it whatever way you want, but I don't think that looks very smart at all.

GJ

raid517

Besides which it might be an idea if you didn't use news sources that were the best part of a year old. If you check the date of that report you will find that it is dated: Monday, March 24, 2003. As it happens, your CW factory turned out to be a cement plant .

In any case like all such incidents throughout the history of this escapade, the hype around it quickly evaporated.

Source: Time Magazine.

Even Fox news have given up pushing the idea that CW will ever be found. Maybe it's time you gave up too?

GJ

SaberZ