T Nation

Where Are The Democrats WMDs?


#1

"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 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 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 Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the 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 b elieve 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 Rockerfeller (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 weap ons 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.

"[W]ithout 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 contin ued 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.


#2

Oh, how soon they forget.....


#3

Mertdawg that is a bunch of made up crap and you know it!

Why the ultra liberals (you know who they are) all said that Bush made the whole thing up just to invade Iraq.

The left gets funnier and funnier the meaner they get.


#4

I just saw this - so is the point of this post that Americans can't trust any of their elected representatives?
You're being lied to no matter who's in power?

same here.

gloom.


#5

Are you guys harping on this again because the situation over there looks more dismal by the month and you can say "But, mommy, mommy, those evil hating (for you zeb) dems said he was a bad man too"?

The Captain of the boat is responsible if the ship runs aground not the captain before him who said it's a clear path there aint no sand bar here.


#6

The difference is, Clinton didn't use this dodgy information to launch a war.


#7

YEA! IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!

:slight_smile:

Please do more...


#8

Quite the leader ole Bill.


#9

Just curious about quite the leader ole Bill. Were his approval ratings ever as low as Ole Georgies are now?


#10

Yeah, that whole "8 years of peace and prosperity" thing was just a coincidence.

Just like the whole "everything he touches turns to shit" thing Junior is working on.


#11

harris447 wrote:
Yeah, that whole "8 years of peace and prosperity" thing was just a coincidence."

Actually, the United States was attacked multiple times. Please indicate the effective measures taken by bill clinton to ward off further attacks.

"Just like the whole "everything he touches turns to shit" thing Junior is working on."

What?

JeffR


#12

elkhntr1 wrote:

"Just curious about quite the leader ole Bill. Were his approval ratings ever as low as Ole Georgies are now?"

Polls?

Every two years there are polls that matter. The ballot box.

George W. Bush received far more votes than billy boy ever did.

Even john "I'm for everything at all times" kerry received more votes than billy boy.

Thanks for the usual nonsense.

JeffR


#13

Approval ratings are nonsense?


#14

Elk,

Clinton's career low in approval rating was 43% (June 1993).

Bush's career low is 44% (July 2005).

So, roughly the same.

Clinton's career high was 69% (January 1998).

Bush's career high was 90% (September 2001, of course).

I got these from Gallup and ABCNews. Take from them what you will.


#15

Can they get him fired? Do they serve a purpose at all other than giving the talking heads something to yammer about?

Unlike Willie boy - Bush doesn't run his office based on wht the popular thing is.

So I would say that Approval ratings don't matter - at least not to the current President.


#16

If they were in favor of Georgie, jerffy would be singing the praises of polls.

You keep pointing to the elections. Let me say this (I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler). Hitler who we can all agree was a douche bag electrified a whole nation to support him right up to their demise.

I say this as a gross example of having a lot of people support you for a plethora of reasons that may not be all that healthy for you or your country.

So, again I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, but rather saying blind support doesn't always dictate a healthy or wise choice.

I still think the right electrified the religious through a few different channels and that is what got ole Georgie elected the second time around.


#17

deanosumo wrote:
"The difference is, Clinton didn't use this dodgy information to launch a war."

Please apologize to the workers' families at the aspirin factory in Sudan.

Thanks,

JeffR


#18

Elk,

"I still think the right electrified the religious through a few different channels and that is what got ole Georgie elected the second time around."

So given the massive turnout for Kerry also, did the Left electrify the Angry Left through a few different channels?


#19

Bullshit. Steroid Act, anyone? The huge focus this government seems to put on big business is not related to popular ideals by those with money in Washington? If they aren't doing it for the sake of what is popular, their reasons must simply be for larger personal bank accounts. Notice that I am not just focusing this on Bush but what seems to be the growing sentiment in Washington in general.


#20

The "angry left"? As if there is no "angry right"?