What do the libs here think of this?

[MDM4AU 336]

"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."

Ex-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."

Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the 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, Clinton Secretary of State, 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 Senators 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

"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 Didn't he just come out and slam Bush about this?

"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

"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

"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

"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."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC), October 10, 2002

"While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive."

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), October 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

“The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history. His invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life."

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), September 13, 2002

"Make no mistake: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant, and he must give up his weapons of mass destruction. We support the President in the course he has followed so far: working with Congress, working with the United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered inspections. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America's problem alone; he is the world's problem. And we urge President Bush to stay this course for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone."

Governor Gary Locke (D-WA), January 28, 2003

Democratic Response to President Bush's "State of the Union" address

SO, shut your pie holes about this matter, please!

[Tiger Al 0]

OK, I'll play...

Secretary Colin L. Powell

Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)

February 24, 2001

"...the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

My, my, my!!! How the song changed and went 180 degrees within seven months. Suddenly, we had WMD's all over Iraq. Unmanned drones were about to deliver tons of biological and chemical agents all over America. Nuclear warheads were soon going to cause mushroom clouds over major cities.

[rexbo 104]

Powell was defending the sanctions and the claim that they were hurting the Iraqi people. Luckily for the world and the Iraqi people, the President of the United States overruled the Secretary of State and decided that keeping Saddam in his box, while sanctions further destroyed the 23 million Iraqi people, was not the best long term policy for our country or the people of Iraq...

[MDM4AU 336]

So now you believe a Bush Admn Official? That's convenient! SO, all your left wing looney friends (Kerry, Hillary, Kennedy, Clinton, etc.) were just way out of line here then, huh?

And by the way, if he didn't have any weapons and he had disposed of what he was reported to have while Willie was in office, why did he not show proof of the destruction? You are sooo caught up in your hatred for Bush and soooo in love with your leftist ideals that you would demonize the US President and defend the ruthless dictator in IRAQ. You would defend a person the Dems spoke out against time and again while Billy was in office. Talk about a 180. And simply on party ideals!

I believe we all have the right to disagree with our government. That's what this country was founded on. But have some real merit in your argument against it rather than just spouting off any negative thing you can (truth or ideal) because you voted for someone else.

I would take you more serious on your stance (disagreement) on things the Bush Admin. has done if it weren't sooooo partisan and idealistic. You would rather attack Bush than even once for a second think that Saddam could have gotten rid of his weapons (Syria, Iran, etc.) or that they still exist and just haven't been found. I am not saying you totally have to believe they are there but why give more credit to a known Mass Murdering Dictator known for hating America, harboring terrorists and paying homicide bomber's families than an American who maybe... just maybe is actually looking out for us. A person that could actually have our best interest at heart.

And another thing, do you not see how hypocritical you are in you slams on Repubs. and Conservatives Re: FoxNews, Limbaugh, while you do the exact thing your fussing about? Look at your sources and catch words. You didn't think of those on your own!

If you can't honestly bring up topics for debate with more merit and substance than you do many times, just stop posting. Stop bouncing around to every angle you can just to get a jab in. It's sensless!

[mcgufcm 4,107]

i'm not getting in this debate for the long-run, but don't you think pulling quotes from 1998-2000 is "bouncing around to every angle you can just to get a jab in?" the situation in iraq was decidedly different in iraq in the late 90's, but i think that adminstration did the right thing in regards to dealing with an actual threat to homeland security: nothing. iraq wasn't a threat then and wasn't a threat one year ago when bush was pushing war.

it's not about believing a dictator that no one is arguing as a good person. the argument is that we either have a President that is being mislead by his staff or we have a President that simply lies to the American people to push his own popularity. those are the only two options. most republicans i know have a very hard time accepting that. i remain adamant that i would have backed bush if he'd just said that saddam had been there too long and it was time to alleviate the iraqi's torture. but he didn't. he lied instead. either intentionally or unintentionally, he lied, and i think he should be raked through the coals for that. but hey, fox news has done one helluva job guarding his back. if this had been the early 90s the backlash would have been much worse.

the WMDs won't be found. they just aren't there. whether they were 3 years ago when saddam was ducking UN inspectors is really irrelavant. some of the quotes you pulled (particularly the one by john kerry) were specifically in support of unifying the nation on a divisive (sp?) issue, not so much a statement of agreement with bush's claims. and most of the modern quotes you supply are simply statements that saddam had attempted to gain WMDs and that he was a tyrant. wow, big shock. but that's not the information that bush supplied the UN or the American people.

on top of that, he cost American lives with his "bring it on" comments, and we are still losing boys everyday over there. the adminstration pulled away from UN allies when bush was in need of a popularity boost which could only come by ousting saddam and winning a war. now, they are turning over to those same allies saying, "rebuilding iraq is a world issue, and we need your help." why wasn't that the case pre-war? because that wasn't the political climate that's why. now, people don't want our boys dying like that so he's pushing for international unification. too little, too late.

another thing most republicans won't admit is that bush is a political monster. they just want to see him as a straight shooting southern man that trusts his instincts and works for you. the fact is he is as politically motivated as anyone that's ever stepped into the oval office. i think it's awful that this adminstration is still using 9/11 as a reference tool to get support for any action they take. sagging economy? remember 9/11 and go buy more gas-guzzling cars. an attack on iraq? remember 9/11 was perpetrated middle easterners (saddam has been proven to have nothing to do with that). dying soldiers? a columbus day speech over the weekend about remembering 9/11 and staying the course. that made me truly sick to my stomach, and it won't end there. remembering 9/11 will be one of his campaign rallying cries and my stomach will continue to turn. okay, that's enough. i'm out.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i'm not getting in this debate for the long-run...

...the argument is that we either have a President that is being mislead by his staff or we have a President that simply lies to the American people to push his own popularity. those are the only two options...

...okay, that's enough. i'm out.

how convenient.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

TigerAl,

You didn't address the original post. You tried to deflect. Please help us understand how the Bush administration lied to get us into this war, but when the same beliefs and concerns about Iraq's capabilities and intentions are expressed by the Clinton administration and numerous other Democrats (many of which are accusing the Bush admin of lying now), there's nothing wrong. Thank you.

[CCTAU 3,348]

another thing most republicans won't admit is that bush is a political monster.  they just want to see him as a straight shooting southern man that trusts his instincts and works for you.  the fact is he is as politically motivated as anyone that's ever stepped into the oval office.  i think it's awful that this adminstration is still using 9/11 as a reference tool to get support for any action they take.  sagging economy?  remember 9/11 and go buy more gas-guzzling cars.  an attack on iraq?  remember 9/11 was perpetrated middle easterners (saddam has been proven to have nothing to do with that).  dying soldiers?  a columbus day speech over the weekend about remembering 9/11 and staying the course.  that made me truly sick to my stomach, and it won't end there.  remembering 9/11 will be one of his campaign rallying cries and my stomach will continue to turn.  okay, that's enough.  i'm out.

It's people like you who just didn't get close enough to the terrorists when they did their thing. I got sense enough to see the ball before it starts rolling. You and those who think like you are the ones who have to have the blood splatter on you before you get it. Hope it doesn't come to that. But if it does, here's to ya'll getting it first.

I know that doesn't sound nice, but I'm willing to go the distance to see that it doesn't happen. You, by your belief that there was and is no threat, have proven that you aren't, therefore putting me and mine in danger.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

wow, you just wished death on someone... that's sweet. very conservative of you. however, you didn't really refute the fact that attack saddam was simply based on an assumption so at least you aren't completely off base. here's a question though: how many times has saddam ever attacked american soil?

don't think too hard b/c the answer is that he hasn't. he wasn't a threat to homeland security. and please don't ever tell me i wasn't close enough to terrorism. i lived in new york less than a year after the attacks and my best friend goes to school at georgetown. that's about 20 minutes from the pentagon and i spent most of 9/11 wondering if ryan was okay b/c i couldn't get through to him. i remember 9/11, and i reiterate that it is a disgusting, underhanded, political move for W to keep using that memory as a political platform.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

...here's a question though: how many times has saddam ever attacked american soil?

don't think too hard b/c the answer is that he hasn't.

some people believe that being proactive rather than reactive is the course to take...

the "assumption" you refer to is one that was widely held by many, as attested to by the quotes that started this thread....assumptions that haven't been proven false yet, btw.

making assumptions are a fact of life. if every decision-maker had 'perfect knowledge' then there would be little decision-making to do. we elect officials to think and act; if any decison-maker refuses to act until s/he has 'perfect knowledge', then they would never act.

the sad thing is that in this case, EVEN IF some of the assumptions weren't 100% correct, there is an incredible amount of evidence in support of the fact that removing hussein was the right thing to do. yet, those unhappy with the way the last election went down continue to harp on the one thing they think could discredit the decision-makers...their *seemingly* imperfect ability to make 100% accurate assumptions.

it appears, however, that the tide is turning as far as the public's willingness to listen to the shrill bitterness coming from the left.

[MDM4AU 336]

wow, you just wished death on someone... that's sweet.  very conservative of you.  however, you didn't really refute the fact that attack saddam was simply based on an assumption so at least you aren't completely off base.  here's a question though: how many times has saddam ever attacked american soil?

don't think too hard b/c the answer is that he hasn't.  he wasn't a threat to homeland security.  and please don't ever tell me i wasn't close enough to terrorism.  i lived in new york less than a year after the attacks and my best friend goes to school at georgetown.  that's about 20 minutes from the pentagon and i spent most of 9/11 wondering if ryan was okay b/c i couldn't get through to him.  i remember 9/11, and i reiterate that it is a disgusting, underhanded, political move for W to keep using that memory as a political platform.

It probably wouldn't be used so much by The Bush Admn. if the Dems weren't still trying to pin the lapse in Security on them. Also, it is still in the forefront of discussion because we are still dealing with it. Osama and his band of merry men come out with a new tape every other week. AL-Quida (sp) were training in Iraq (fact) so these topics will continue to be in the forefront. To claim "political move for W to keep using that memory as a political platform," is just simply your party line spewage.

And since you posed the question, When did anyone from Bosnia or Somolia attack US soil? I mean if we are going toplayb that game, lets ask where yours and all the other Dems outrage was with Clinton? I mean, I hate to keep bringng that up but there is an obvious double standard here.

Lastly, If Saddam is allowing Al-quida to train on his land and paying homicide bombers' families, what makes you think that he would not jump at the chance to be in on hurting America. He already made clear his hate for us.

[channonc 466]

As a more conservative Democrat on Capitol Hill, I would like to throw my hat into the ring here...

While I totally agree that Saddam had to be removed and that the war was justified, I am not convinced Bush's motives were just completely "Homeland Security." I think that we will never find WMDs, I mean just think of how many weeks it took us to find fighter jets that were buried in the sand.

I definately have my doubts as to political motivation, and I also hate the fact that everytime there is heat put on Bush, he comes back with "lets remember 9/11."

I hope everyone does remember 9/11 and realizes we are in a different world. Security is much more important than it ever has been and the US can no longer afford to be reactive and it must be proactive in protecting our borders and our people.

Remember this is one of the few powers that our founding fathers gave to the federal government, military control in order to protect the citizens. Few remember that this is actually one of the most important jobs of any President.

Finally, after living and working inside the Beltway, I have begun a complete hatred for the Media. Most major newspapers and 24/7 media channels only tell you the stories you want to hear. Also, be sure to check up on your Senators and Represenatives and stay informed as to what your elected officials are doing. Check out their websites and be sure to write to them if you have comments or questions, guys thats what they are there for! For more accurate political news check out these websites for Capitol Hill newspapers which everyone up here reads (Rep. and Democrat).

The Hill

Roll Call

War Eagle all!!

[CCTAU 3,348]

wow, you just wished death on someone... that's sweet. very conservative of you. however, you didn't really refute the fact that attack saddam was simply based on an assumption so at least you aren't completely off base. here's a question though: how many times has saddam ever attacked american soil?

don't think too hard b/c the answer is that he hasn't. he wasn't a threat to homeland security. and please don't ever tell me i wasn't close enough to terrorism. i lived in new york less than a year after the attacks and my best friend goes to school at georgetown. that's about 20 minutes from the pentagon and i spent most of 9/11 wondering if ryan was okay b/c i couldn't get through to him. i remember 9/11, and i reiterate that it is a disgusting, underhanded, political move for W to keep using that memory as a political platform.

You still didn't get my point. If it comes down to me or you.....I'm for me. I have supported the proactive actions in this situation, you have not. At this point, you have chosen to take a chance with my family's life. And for that I am not grateful. So take it however you want. I will do what it takes to survive and others like me will still probably suffer because of those like you. Get it now?

[CCTAU 3,348]

As a more conservative Democrat on Capitol Hill, I would like to throw my hat into the ring here...

While I totally agree that Saddam had to be removed and that the war was justified, I am not convinced Bush's motives were just completely "Homeland Security." I think that we will never find WMDs, I mean just think of how many weeks it took us to find fighter jets that were buried in the sand.

I definately have my doubts as to political motivation, and I also hate the fact that everytime there is heat put on Bush, he comes back with "lets remember 9/11."

I hope everyone does remember 9/11 and realizes we are in a different world. Security is much more important than it ever has been and the US can no longer afford to be reactive and it must be proactive in protecting our borders and our people.

Remember this is one of the few powers that our founding fathers gave to the federal government, military control in order to protect the citizens. Few remember that this is actually one of the most important jobs of any President.

Finally, after living and working inside the Beltway, I have begun a complete hatred for the Media. Most major newspapers and 24/7 media channels only tell you the stories you want to hear. Also, be sure to check up on your Senators and Represenatives and stay informed as to what your elected officials are doing. Check out their websites and be sure to write to them if you have comments or questions, guys thats what they are there for! For more accurate political news check out these websites for Capitol Hill newspapers which everyone up here reads (Rep. and Democrat).

The Hill

Roll Call

War Eagle all!!

Excellent post. I don't say that to libs ever. Nice job. I had Bob Barr as my congressman and I used to rail all over him. I liked most of his stance, but there were things he was just too conservitively blind about. So keeping up with your statesmen is an excellent suggestions. You can usually go to their websites, rail on them and get a response. Then you are on their email list and will get periodic updates. the rest is up to you.

[channonc 466]

Thanks CCTAU!! I am truely surprised at the small amount of people who actually know what is going on up here and of course they are the first to complain. Keeping up with your Congressmen (whether you voted for them or not, agree with them or not) is your job, otherwise they will not really be representing you. They are doing your job, now do yours by keeping up with them and the issues from a variety of sources not just TV and your local newspaper.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

first thing first, i maintain that you are straight wrong for that kind of comment. i get what you are saying, but lemme put my stance this way. regardless of your stance, with me or against me, if i had to choice i'd take your place. simple as that. now on to the fun part, political discussion.

the "obvious double standard" someone brought up, i'm going to have to disagree. i can see where you're coming from, but the difference comes from motivation. clinton never came on my tv and said "somalia is a clear and present danger to American soil so we have to go in there and bomb away." he said the situation needed to be changed and went to change it. like i said in my original post, if W had said that saddam simply had to be removed, i would have been in support. i think the end result of poorly motivated (and entirely politically motivated) actions was a good result. however, the President simply did it for all the wrong reasons and, it appears, lied about those reasons.

and i don't think W's use of 9/11 has the kind of innocent reminder that you claim it does. he's not saying, "remember 9/11 to keep yourself and those close to you as safe as possible." he's saying stuff like, "remember 9/11 and support my ideas on the oil pipeline in alaska." that's the awful part. i've said it before i think he is a pretty good man, but he has foibles just like everyone else. he is a political monster, a manipulator (or a liar or intentionally ill-advised take your pick). on top of that, i think he's done a poor to pathetic job of outlining a coherent policy for national issues.

[CCTAU 3,348]

first thing first, i maintain that you are straight wrong for that kind of comment.  i get what you are saying, but lemme put my stance this way.  regardless of your stance, with me or against me, if i had to choice i'd take your place.

I wouldn't take yours. Sorry if that offends you. I've got my own family to worry about.

and i don't think W's use of 9/11 has the kind of innocent reminder that you claim it does.  he's not saying, "remember 9/11 to keep yourself and those close to you as safe as possible."  he's saying stuff like, "remember 9/11 and support my ideas on the oil pipeline in alaska."  that's the awful part.  i've said it before i think he is a pretty good man, but he has foibles just like everyone else.  he is a political monster, a manipulator (or a liar or intentionally ill-advised take your pick).  on top of that, i think he's done a poor to pathetic job of outlining a coherent policy for national issues.

And Bush's foriegn policy is as it should be. Just like the unsaid, unwrittem policy of yore......"You mess with us...poof. NEXT." I'm tired of being the world's most powerful nation AND its biggest doormat. Like I said, you give yours away and leave mine alone. If you want to hide your head in the sand and pray nothing happens, do it with your own family's life. But don't take a chance with mine. Ignoring Iraq was taking a chance with mine. You may argue how big or small that chance is, but I'm for eliminating it no matter how small.

[Tiger Al 0]

MDM4AU, I would much rather you use this link because it provides links to the source of the quotes and then you can find, in most cases, the entire speech, press conference or position statement that the quote came from. It helps put the quote in context. I think all of the pre-2002 quotes were probably fairly accurate. Why? Because, if you remember, from 1994 up until December of 1998 UN weapons inspectors had been very active in not only destroying illegal weapons, but, providing intelligence to the US and UK via UN Security Council reports.

The quotes from 2002 forward, if you'll look, all cite administration sources (State dept., President/VP, CIA, FBI). The problem with that is that many CIA officials have said that much of the intel the Bush administration cited was from 1998! They claimed that the administration was putting enormous pressure on them to provide 'smoking gun' evidence that wasn't available. The 'ace-in-the-hole' was a British 'intelligence report' that was nothing more than copied acedemic articles. The person responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell, Greg Thielmann, says the Secretary of State misinformed Americans during his speech at the U.N. last winter. He said that at the time of Powell’s speech, Iraq didn’t pose an imminent threat to anyone – not even its own neighbors.

Yet, we were given very compelling reasons for invading Iraq due to its' dangerous and imminent threat to not only its' neighbors, but also to Israel and to the US itself.

Weapons of Mass Destruction-The Bush administration contended that Iraq had enormous stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, illegal missiles and were very close to achieving nuclear capability. If true, this would be a monumental reason to attack Iraq.

We were told that the al-Samoud II missile would travel 800 miles, over 700 miles further than was allowed. It was reported in February of this year that it only goes 108 miles, minus its' heavy guidance system. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Iraq had attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Niger, said Bush. It was reported March 6 of this year by the UN's chief nuclear inspector that the documents were forged. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

We were told that U.S. intelligence indicated that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. According to top UN inspector Scott Ritter, this was the area of the inspections process that had the most profound impact by destroying Hussein's missile arsenal. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Iraq also allegedly tried to import 81mm hardened aluminum tubes for gas centrifuges, used to enrich uranium. David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector said in October of last year that this purpose was unlikely and was most probably to be used for rockets. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

We were told of the thousands of tons of chemical weapons they possessed. This allegation didn't take into account weapons destroyed in the first Gulf War or by UNSCOM, according to a report dated June, 2000, by Scott Ritter. He also said that any unaccounted chemical agents would've deteriorated and been useless. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Bush said Iraq had a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used in missions targeting the US. No such fleet ever existed. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

During the months of January-March of this year, due to threat of military action, UN weapons inspectors were given free reign over Iraq, including the Presidential palaces where the Bush administration claimed stockpiles of illegal weapons and mobile bio labs were located. Hussein allowed U2 spy planes to fly over Iraq. Inspectors went in with specific coordinates supplied by the US and found nothing. Surveillance photos purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found nothing. Within weeks, Bush ordered inspectors out of Iraq and began invasion.

Terrorism-The Bush administration asserted that Iraq had ties not only to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but, to 9/11 itself. Iraq was a training ground to the world's terrorists and, indeed, was funding, training and equipping them, the administration said. If true, there would be no doubt as to the magnitude of this threat or the speed with which it must be neutralized.

Condoleeza Rice said there were contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that could be documented. Unfortunately, they weren't. Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In fact, in an audio tape of bin Laden, he called Hussein's Ba'athist Party 'infidels.' According to an official British intelligence report written in January, 2003, "There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, there has been contact between the two in the past, but any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies." The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

According to Bush in Oct., 2002, "Iraq trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." The area in question was in the northern Iraq Kurdish province, separated from Hussein by the US no-fly zone. Had he wanted to aid or eliminate them, his reach did not extend that far. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted in February, at the UN, that Iraq supported other terrorist groups such as Ansar al-Islam. According to one of its' leaders, Majamuddin Fraraj Ahmad, in an interview with ABCNEWS February 5, 2003, "They are our enemy," adding that his group opposes Saddam Hussein because, unlike Osama bin Laden, Saddam is not a good Muslim. In fact, their leaders say they seek to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA chief of counter-terrrorism, says the Bush administration was putting fierce pressure on the CIA to produce evidence about the Iraq al-Qaeda link that it didn't have. "They are not getting it from the CIA because the CIA, to its credit, is telling it the way they see it, which is what they should be doing, describing the world as it is, not as policy-makers wish it to be, or hope it to be, but as it is." The Bush administration knew this before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Saddam Hussein the brutal dictator-There is no doubt that Hussein was a brutal, oppressive dictator. The case can be made that his sons were even worse. The gassing of Kurds, albeit in 1988, did happen. Political dissidents were imprisoned and tortured simply for disagreeing with the regime. Human rights was not high on Hussein's list of things to do. Had this been the argument to attack Iraq, it might've garnered more support in this country as well as the rest of the world. Maybe not. But, at least we would've been honest and not frittered away every ounce of goodwill the rest of the world poured on us following 9/11. Not working through the UN will be one of the biggest bugaboo's of this war, I believe. I think there will be long-term unrest because any government established will be viewed as an American puppet. I don't think that would've been the case had the UN been involved from the beginning. This will end up costing untold billions of dollars that I think could've been better spent rooting out legitimate terrorist groups elsewhere. As our attention was diverted toward Iraq, Taliban and al Qaeda members have begun re-infesting Afghanistan.

In the end, Saddam Hussein is gone, which is a good thing. I just don't think that end justified the means with which the Bush administration got there.

[MDM4AU 336]

True or false, Commy-AL.

There were weapons found by the inspectors while Clinton was in office.

There were weapons unaccounted for (still there, traded on black market, destroyed, eaten by aliens...) when the inspectors returned after CLinton left office and GWB was in.

Bill Clinton agreed with GW Bush on his position and the attacking of Iraq. From his own words after all you bleeding heart libs were speaking against GW Bush.

Because they are democrats they were taken out of context, (hence, the "I think" in your post.)

You kill me!

[Tiger Al 0]

And, BTW, MDM4AU, you seem to know me so well, exactly who do you think I voted for in the 2000 presidential election?

[Tiger Al 0]

True or false, Commy-AL.

Ahhh, name calling...the last bastion of the anti-thinker.

There were weapons found by the inspectors while Clinton was in office.

Weapons found, weapons destroyed.

There were weapons unaccounted for (still there, traded on black market, destroyed, eaten by aliens...) when the inspectors returned after CLinton left office and GWB was in.

It's hard to say. After three months of weapons inspectors being sent on wild goose chases and finding NOTHING, Dubya, knowing it didn't look good, pulled them out in favor of 'Shock and Awe.'

Bill Clinton agreed with GW Bush on his position and the attacking of Iraq. From his own words after all you bleeding heart libs were speaking against GW Bush.

Did President Clinton start a war with Iraq? Bush made many of his claims based on information as old as that Clinton quote you're so fond of. Do you make major, life changing decisions based on five year old information?

Because they are democrats they were taken out of context, (hence, the "I think" in your post.)

Consider what President Clinton had said earlier in the address: "That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days -- within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War -- if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference."

And one other little difference between then and now: "Now, we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, of Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada."

The rest of the world was with us then. Why didn't they support us earlier this year?

You kill me!

No, I won't. But, I have a better idea. Since you are such an enormous supporter of Bush and his war, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and join the Army? Then, once in the middle of downtown Baghdad, I want you to yell out as loud as you can, "Bring 'em on!!!" Go get 'em, John Wayne.