DVD Talk
Clinton: The Big Mistake of the Iraq War [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Clinton: The Big Mistake of the Iraq War


hahn
11-17-05, 06:48 PM
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article327773.ece

The article is less about Clinton and more about how there is finally starting to be bipartisan agreement about the mishandling of the Iraq War and how many, even the Republicans now consider it a mistake.

DVD Polizei
11-17-05, 06:54 PM
Yeah, I read about this. Was not too enthusiastic about posting it here, though. :lol:

He does make some points, which I might add, have been discussed here.

Michael T Hudson
11-17-05, 07:01 PM
I just saw that on google news.

kvrdave
11-17-05, 07:10 PM
Makes you wish Clinton had better intelligence -wink-

DVD Polizei
11-17-05, 07:12 PM
He got his intel from Bush, Sr. :D

hahn
11-17-05, 07:18 PM
Yeah, I read about this. Was not too enthusiastic about posting it here, though. :lol:
*shrug* Not like I'm going to be hated anymore than I am. :D

kvrdave
11-17-05, 07:22 PM
He got his intel from Bush, Sr. :D

One would think he would update it every 8 years or so. But as I recall, Clinton did a number of things to limit our intel gathering capabilities. That was a good idea.

CRM114
11-17-05, 08:52 PM
More on Murtha ...


November 17, 2005
Influential House Democrat Urges Immediate Iraq Pullout

By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - An influential House Democrat called the Iraq campaign "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion" today as he called for the immediate withdrawal of United States troops, intensifying an already bitter debate on Capitol Hill.

"It is time for a change in direction," said Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the leading Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee. "Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk."

Mr. Murtha, a conservative who voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing use of force in Iraq and who supported the Persian Gulf war in 1991, called for "the immediate redeployment of American forces."

"It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," Mr. Murtha said during an emotional news conference on Capitol Hill. His remarks were quickly denounced by House Republicans as defeatist and wrongheaded.

Mr. Murtha, a 73-year-old Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam combat, lashed back at Vice President Dick Cheney, who in a speech to a conservative group on Wednesday night condemned critics of the Iraq war. "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," Mr. Cheney said in an address to the group, Frontiers of Freedom, in Washington.

Mr. Murtha was disdainful of the vice president's remarks, saying that "people with five deferments" had no right to make such remarks. Mr. Cheney, like millions of other young men of the era, avoided military service during the Vietnam war.

Mr. Murtha's call for a pullout was condemned by some House Republicans.

"We are in the process of delivering a free Iraq," said Representative Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He said the creation of a new Iraq would make the Middle East and the world safer and stand in history like the rebuilding of Europe after World War II. As for talk of a pullout, Mr. Hunter said, "Lots of our enemies think America is capable only of fighting a two-week war."

Representative Kay Granger of Texas, a Republican member of the Appropriation's defense subcommittee who appeared with Mr. Hunter, said a quick withdrawal from Iraq would break faith with America's troops. As for the Americans killed in Iraq, she said, a withdrawal would mean "their lives have been lost in vain." Earlier, Ms. Granger called Mr. Murtha's remarks "reprehensible and irresponsible," according to The Associated Press.

"It shows the Democratic Party has chosen a policy of retreat and defeatism which will only encourage the terrorists and threaten the stability of Iraq," she said, according to The A.P. Mr. Murtha's demeanor and personal history as well as his status on the Appropriations Committee may lend extra weight to his words. He generally shuns publicity and does not often speak on the House floor.

After serving in the Marines in the early 1950's, he re-enlisted in 1966, at the age of 34, and served in Vietnam, earning a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry, according to The Almanac of American Politics. When he won his House seat in a special election in February 1974 he became the first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress.

Mr. Cheney's speech came a day after the Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for the Bush administration to make regular progress reports on the war and for 2006 to be a "transition year" in which the Iraqis will assume responsibility for security of their own country.

The vice president's assertions that some politicians want to rewrite history was aimed at those who voted in 2002 to authorize force against Saddam Hussein but have more recently become critics of Iraq campaign, charging that the Bush administration manipulated pre-war intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by the old Baghdad regime.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Mr. Cheney's speech of Wednesday night as well as President Bush's recent remarks on Iraq show that they have "shamlessly decided to play politics."

"We're at war," Mr. Reid said. "We need a commander in chief, not a campaigner in chief."

Another Democrat, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, praised Mr. Murtha "for having the courage to stand up to the administration's outrageous attempts to intimidate into silence those who are trying to fix our Iraq policy." Mr. Feingold has suggested setting a target date of Dec. 31, 2006, for having United States troops out of Iraq.

At his Capitol news conference, Mr. Murtha became emotional as he spoke of hospital visits to wounded troops. "What demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace," he said.

"Our troops have become the primary target for the insurgency," Mr. Murtha said. Insurgents, he said, "are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence." He went on to say that, before the Iraqi elections in December, the country's people and its emerging government "must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy."

"All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free," he said. "Free from United States occupation."

classicman2
11-17-05, 09:00 PM
The unease, the misgivings, and downright opposition can be contained no longer. From Senate Republicans, to one of the most influential Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday, the message has been the same. The Iraq war has been a disaster, and the sooner American troops leave the better. The alarm was sounded on Capitol Hill on Tuesday when Senate Republicans and Democrats joined forces to demand the White House explain every three months how it intends to "complete the mission,

Either a misinterpretation of what happened or a deliberate misstatement of the facts in the matter.

What the Senate Republicans did was simply what amounts to a suggestion to the White House. It was made in response to the Levin amendment which would required a timetable for withdrawal. Over and over again, Levin, Biden, and other Democrats stated it was a timetable for the redeployment of U. S. troops - not a withdrawal. Utter nonsense!! It amounts to the same thing.

The Frist-Warner amendment doesn't have any real teeth. You can argue that it's a proposal under the War Powers Act. If the President chooses to ignore it, the Congress won't do a thing, because they realize the War Powers Act is unconsitutional. In addition, it will encounter great difficulty in the House.

DVD Polizei
11-17-05, 10:07 PM
Murtha, Murtha, Murtha.

nemein
11-17-05, 10:23 PM
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Mr. Cheney's speech of Wednesday night as well as President Bush's recent remarks on Iraq show that they have "shamlessly decided to play politics."

:lol: and of course the Dems are completely blameless of this.... -ohbfrank-

Anyway w/ this attitude and growing sentiment we might as well cut and run. Of course we'll have to develop a fortress america type attitude at home because if we show we are a "paper tiger" once again we'll lose all credibilty/respect regarding the ability to defend ourselves and our committment to that goal. As it stands now we still have a chance to pull this off IMHO and no decisions should be made one way or another before the next election is done and over w/.

Pharoh
11-17-05, 10:59 PM
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article327773.ece

The article is less about Clinton and more about how there is finally starting to be bipartisan agreement about the mishandling of the Iraq War and how many, even the Republicans now consider it a mistake.



Wow, really?

Maybe I read some other article, because I sure don't see Republicans, (in any pluarlistic sense), claiming any such thing. Did I simply skimp over it? Is there another link I forgot to click?

Pharoh
11-17-05, 11:00 PM
Either a misinterpretation of what happened or a deliberate misstatement of the facts in the matter.

What the Senate Republicans did was simply what amounts to a suggestion to the White House. It was made in response to the Levin amendment which would required a timetable for withdrawal. Over and over again, Levin, Biden, and other Democrats stated it was a timetable for the redeployment of U. S. troops - not a withdrawal. Utter nonsense!! It amounts to the same thing.

The Frist-Warner amendment doesn't have any real teeth. You can argue that it's a proposal under the War Powers Act. If the President chooses to ignore it, the Congress won't do a thing, because they realize the War Powers Act is unconsitutional. In addition, it will encounter great difficulty in the House.



People simply see what they want to see and hear just what they want to hear. Well, many people at least.

DVD Polizei
11-17-05, 11:17 PM
Wow, really?

Maybe I read some other article, because I sure don't see Republicans, (in any pluarlistic sense), claiming any such thing. Did I simply skimp over it? Is there another link I forgot to click?

The Iraq war has been a disaster, and the sooner American troops leave the better. The alarm was sounded on Capitol Hill on Tuesday when Senate Republicans and Democrats joined forces to demand the White House explain every three months how it intends to "complete the mission" in Iraq.

Pharoh
11-17-05, 11:27 PM
The Iraq war has been a disaster, and the sooner American troops leave the better. The alarm was sounded on Capitol Hill on Tuesday when Senate Republicans and Democrats joined forces to demand the White House explain every three months how it intends to "complete the mission" in Iraq.




See the post by C-Man.

What you just copied makes no assertation. The article does nothing more than mis-interpret, or mis-represent the actions of the United States Senate. I will go with mis-interpret, as the author of the 'article' likely does not possess a good understanding of the that body. Or maybe that is easier to believe than that the author has some type of agenda.

Either way, my point stands, and your post does nothing to change the reality of it.

DVD Polizei
11-17-05, 11:35 PM
People simply see what they want to see and hear just what they want to hear. Well, many people at least.
Either way, my point stands, and your post does nothing to change the reality of it.

You're sounding like Bush. No offense, and I know you're mush smarter than he is. But still.

----

I did read the post by C-Man. He never said REPUBLICANS (plural by the way) didn't exist. He said What the Senate Republicans did was simply what amounts to a suggestion to the White House.

I'm not saying this will or will not have an effect. I'm just saying you're wondering where 2 Republicans or more are involved as per your plural question.

The article and C-Man have said this plurality exists.

We will continue to see ultra-conservative Republicans supporting their President to the end (and the ultras threatening their not-so-ultra peers), but this will change.

Give it time. The public is beginning to change their thinking.

Eventually we'll have Bush by himself in a corner of the oval office, crying like a little baby who just got his lollypop taken away, and the majority of Americans and Congress, will be requesting a withdrawal of US forces. Not all of them of course, but a significant amount.

This Iraq thing is only going to last, at most, for the duration of Bush's presidency. It will then be history, and we will have so many documentaries describing the failures of the US government, you'll have to subscribe to NetFlix to even see them all without going broke.

But until then, just sit back and enjoy the ride for the next few years.

nemein
11-18-05, 05:34 AM
Senate Republicans and Democrats joined forces to demand the White House explain every three months how it intends to "complete the mission" in Iraq.

From my understanding of the wording of the resolution the admin is already pretty much in compliance w/ it. There are regular reports to the senate at a variety of levels covering a variety of aspects of the occupation. I mean I guess we'll have to see how it plays out and whether or not there is any significant change in how things are done (wrt what's reported and when).

Mammal
11-18-05, 06:55 AM
I saw an article pointing out that the popularity of the Iraq war today is about the same as the popularity of the Vietnam war in 1970...

At least in a few years we can look forward to an influx of Iraqi refugees and a proliferation of Iraqi restaurants.

Pharoh
11-18-05, 08:20 AM
You're sounding like Bush. No offense, and I know you're mush smarter than he is. But still.

----

I did read the post by C-Man. He never said REPUBLICANS (plural by the way) didn't exist. He said What the Senate Republicans did was simply what amounts to a suggestion to the White House.

I'm not saying this will or will not have an effect. I'm just saying you're wondering where 2 Republicans or more are involved as per your plural question.

The article and C-Man have said this plurality exists.

We will continue to see ultra-conservative Republicans supporting their President to the end (and the ultras threatening their not-so-ultra peers), but this will change.

Give it time. The public is beginning to change their thinking.

Eventually we'll have Bush by himself in a corner of the oval office, crying like a little baby who just got his lollypop taken away, and the majority of Americans and Congress, will be requesting a withdrawal of US forces. Not all of them of course, but a significant amount.

This Iraq thing is only going to last, at most, for the duration of Bush's presidency. It will then be history, and we will have so many documentaries describing the failures of the US government, you'll have to subscribe to NetFlix to even see them all without going broke.

But until then, just sit back and enjoy the ride for the next few years.



:Sigh:

The clear implication of the original article, as explicitly stated by the original poster, was that:
even the Republicans now consider it a mistake.

I have not seen yet where Republicans are stating the entire action in Iraq was a mistake. In fact, over the last two days I have seen the exact opposite.

Further, the whole basis for that false assumption was the bill that was passed in the Senate. The analysis and characterisation of that bill is completely erroneous. While it certainly wasn't a victory for the administration, it was not a major defeat or an indictment of the the whole Iraq war. Rather, it was a reaction to the Levin amendment, that's it.

Hell, if one truly wants to objectively assess the goings on in the Senate, it would be that the august body is once again, as it has many times previously throughout our history, trying to wrest power away from the White House, power that they believe in theirs to begin with.

classicman2
11-18-05, 08:25 AM
The action in the senate by the Republicans was simply a counter move to the political action of the Democrats in the senate. It was politics - nothing else.

The Democrats feel they have an issue with the War in Iraq. The polls seem to indicate they are correct.

However, I'm not certain that a timetable for withdrawal is a smart political move by the Democrats. I'm am certain that it's a bad foreign policy move.

bhk
11-18-05, 08:45 AM
I see that Bill is up to his usual shtik of trying to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. This was was needed because Hussein was defeating the Clinton administration and the EU was going to let him weasel out of sanctions.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4997

What the President Should be Saying

November 18th, 2005



It’s nice that the President is finally ridiculing the ridiculous charge that he lied us into war in Iraq. I, for one, am grateful for any sign of political life from a White House that sometimes seems to have gone into a second term coma. So far, however, the President has been content to pick some very low hanging rhetorical fruit. He needs to hit the Democrats much harder and much more often.

So far the new offensive in the war of words consists mostly of pointing out the glaring contradiction that underlies the “Bush lied, people died” disinformation campaign. Every prominent Democrat politician had access to the same antebellum information about Saddam Hussein and reached the same conclusions about the danger of leaving him at large as did President Bush. Most of them stated their conclusions about Saddam on videotape.

Assigning all the blame for a bipartisan mistake to George W. Bush is certainly unfair. The unfounded claim that the President initiated a war in bad faith is something much worse than unfair. It is seditious. Democrats are fortunate that the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue isn’t as tough as Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln would have Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and company cooling their heels in jail like many of their Copperhead forbearers. Bush, to his credit, has at least bestirred himself to observe that rewriting recent history to defame our Commander in Chief hurts our war effort and promotes the jihad.

This is good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. It is not enough to point out that George W. Bush had plenty of company in error when he decided that Saddam Hussein was concealing weapons of mass destruction from U.N. inspectors. Many may have made the same mistake but Bush is primarily responsible for acting on it.

The President must argue that, with or without weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had to go. He must make it plain that all the sound and fury about Saddam’s arsenal or lack thereof signifies nothing. Even if we had known for sure in 2002 that Saddam had no unconventional weapons, any minimally responsible American government would have had to take him out. The war in Iraq is a war of strategic necessity. We had no choice about starting it and we have no choice about finishing it on our own terms.

Perhaps our intelligence services grossly overestimated Saddam’s unconventional capabilities. (Perhaps they didn’t and Iraqi intelligence services concealed them during our long pre-invasion detour through the U.N., but I digress.) We may have been misled about the exact nature of the threat Saddam posed to us. But there is not and never has been any reasonable doubt that he did pose a threat and a serious one.

We were at war with Saddam when George W. Bush took office. During the Clinton years Saddam was winning the war. Our government tossed bombs at him whenever Bill Clinton felt compelled to wag the dog. Steadily, however, the sanctions regime was eroding and the “international community” was losing whatever will it ever had to keep Saddam constrained. The Bush administration showed up for work and confronted a grim choice between letting Saddam win his long war with the U.S. and rooting him out by force.

September 11, 2001 turned that choice into a no-brainer. After that date we knew and Saddam knew that he could strike a devastating blow against the American homeland merely by supporting the right terrorist. He could strike that blow with or without a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons. He had wealth, weapons technology and contacts with Jihad, Inc, all of which made his capacity for mischief almost unlimited. If, for example, he couldn’t build a nuclear weapon at home he might well have been able to buy one at a Nukes R’ Us in the former Soviet Union and deliver it to coastal American city care of a cooperative terrorist organization.

We couldn’t deter Saddam from making this nightmare scenario a reality because there was no reason to expect that we could ever identify him as the sponsor of any particular attack with enough certainty to justify retaliation. There is fragmentary evidence that Iraqi intelligence was involved in planning both the 9/11 attacks and the first World Trade Center bombings. That sort of evidence is the best one is likely to find in the wake of a covert operation, even an ineptly executed one. With just a little caution, Saddam could strike us with impunity. He knew it, we knew it, and the administration would have been criminally negligent to allow it.

After 9/11 we couldn’t leave Saddam free to attack us. We also couldn’t let him defeat us. He had defied us for years and we had to make him pay for it. Even if Saddam had not posed a direct threat, we couldn’t accept the strategic consequences of losing a war to our most prominent Arab enemy in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

9/11 didn’t happen because a small group of terrorists decided to attack us. It happened because hundreds of millions of Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, wanted it to happen. Osama bin Laden supplied what his culture demands. That culture has to learn to want something better. It must learn to respect us and to fear our anger. We couldn’t earn respect in the Arab world as long as we let Saddam play us for fools.

Anyone who considers the facts and still wonders whether invading Iraq was a good idea should glance at a map. Before we invaded Iraq there were three major terror sponsoring states in the Middle East. Today there are only two, Syria and Iran, and we have a powerful army between them. Syria is caught between the Israeli hammer and the American anvil. The Iranian regime is shaken to its foundations by the rise of a democratic Iraq. The invasion of Iraq did far more to promote the defeat of the terror masters than anything else we could have done with the same time and resources.

We didn’t invade Iraq on a scavenger hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Our failure to find them raised questions about the quality of our intelligence, but not about the basis for the invasion. We went in to crush a dangerous enemy and begin the long, slow process of reforming a poisonous culture. Our reasons were compelling in 2003 and they are compelling today. The President needs to make that clear over and over again.

Complaining that a lot of Democrats shared the President’s pre-war views about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, serves mostly to keep public attention focused on a trivial distraction. The President needs to talk about what we have gained in Iraq and what we stand to gain by holding our ground and continuing to exterminate terrorists there. Those are subjects that really matter and the bully pulpit should be reserved for important subjects.

The descent of the Democrat Party into disloyalty is another suitable subject for the bully pulpit. Nobody who makes the bizarre claim that our invasion of Iraq was unjustified because we found no weapons of mass destruction is fit to hold any office of public trust. People who make that claim are:

a.) too stupid to breathe without a respirator;

b.) so corrupt that they are willing to damage the war effort in pursuit of short-term political advantage; or

c.) actively working to undermine the national interest.

None of the above belongs in public life. Unfortunately there are a lot of professional Democrats in each of these three categories.

Nearly fifty years after Senator Joe McCarthy drank himself to death it is time for the taboo against “questioning the patriotism” of a liberal to pass from the American political scene. The truth is that most Democrats oppose the war in Iraq because they oppose anything and everything we might do to defeat our Islamofascist enemies. That’s unpatriotic and the President should say so.

He should address the nation from the Oval Office look straight into the camera and say:

When I took office in January of 2001 America was already at war with Saddam Hussein. My predecessor was willing to lose that war. His Iraq policy was a slow-motion surrender punctuated by occasional spasms of politically convenient bombing. On September 11, 2001 we learned that we had to take our Middle Eastern enemies more seriously than that. I decided that we had to win our war with Saddam Hussein because defeat would have been too dangerous. We did what we had to do and Saddam is now a defendant not a dictator. Democrats in Congress want to revisit my decision. They call the liberation of Iraq a mistake and demand a timetable for bringing our troops home whether or not our work is done there. In other words, they regret an American victory and want to replace it with an American defeat if at all possible. The party of Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy has been reduced to carrying water and leading cheers for America’s deadly enemies.

What the heck? It’s not like they can hate him any more than they already do.

J. Peter Mulhern is an attorney in the Washington, DC area. He is a frequent contributor.

DVD Polizei
11-18-05, 02:12 PM
Great 9/11 quotes. Because hey, when someone mentions 9/11 as a just reason, there simply cannot be no flaw in that argument.

Why invade Iraq? We did it because of 9/11!

Why is our military budget being spent with no ceiling? Don't Ask! We did it because of 9/11!

~2,100 US Troops dead? We did it because of 9/11!

Lack of proper border protection on our own soil? Don't ask! We do it because of 9/11!

Please. The 9/11 reason is an insult.

Who was behind 9/11? Who supported it? Look at Saudi Arabia. Oh. But. Wait. Conservatives don't talk about that. Why? Well, Bush is heavily involved with Saudi Arabia.

Hmmm. Maybe then, Bush is CHOOSING who is a terrorist and who is not.

Now, you tell me who's corrupt, stupid, and undermining national interests.

From the article: We didn’t invade Iraq on a scavenger hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Our failure to find them raised questions about the quality of our intelligence, but not about the basis for the invasion

Has this moron read Bush's speeches leading up to March 2003?

Apparently not. Sigh.

The Alzheimer's Party must've joined Bush Supporters in the last few years.

Myster X
11-18-05, 02:23 PM
Must we play this game everytime?

"[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

wendersfan
11-18-05, 02:28 PM
Must we play this game everytime? Are you able to understand the difference between someone criticizing a decision and someone criticizing an implementation of a decision? Apparently not.

Myster X
11-18-05, 02:34 PM
Are you able to understand the difference between someone criticizing a decision and someone criticizing an implementation of a decision? Apparently not.

But I am able to tell the difference between doing it or complain endlessly without a solution.

wendersfan
11-18-05, 02:39 PM
But I am able to tell the difference between doing it or complain endlessly without a solution.So, if you hired someone to build an addition to your house and they started destroying electrical and gas lines in your backyard, you'd keep your mouth shut because they were "doing it"? Right. You just hate Clinton, so anything the guy has to say is useless in your mind.

Myster X
11-18-05, 02:49 PM
So, if you hired someone to build an addition to your house and they started destroying electrical and gas lines in your backyard, you'd keep your mouth shut because they were "doing it"? Right. You just hate Clinton, so anything the guy has to say is useless in your mind.

Wrong again. I'll stop it since I have a solution. I wasn't responding to Clinton by the way. I was responding to the poster before me. Hate Clinton? No. I don't have this pathological obsession unlike some radical right wing Christian nuts out there who has nothing better to do than to focus on his penis. Last I remember, I am allow to criticize the past or present president's policies regardless if you agree or not.

Th0r S1mpson
11-18-05, 04:22 PM
So why is the rhetoric over Iraq getting so heavy now?


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0