OT- Did the Prez lie about WMD?

SO, OUR PRESIDENT LIED ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION This might come in handy.....

Re-evaluating Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov.10,

1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit 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, 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 believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical rfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

------------------------------------

So how come the Democrats say there never was any WMD and Bush went to war for oil?

Gunner

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

Reply to
Gunner
Loading thread data ...

That Clinton is scum and a liar is no news.

The Bush is scum and a liar is a much more relevant news. Trying to parade old lies from Bill Clinton in order to placate Bush is a distraction tactic and is dishonest.

By now, it is clear that Bush had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and was lying throughout the whole affair.

In fact, the true reason why he attacked Iraq and not, say, a much more threatening North Korea was because Iraq was defenseless (and more economically interesting).

i
Reply to
Ignoramus19432

1) No easter bunny. 2) No santa claus. 3) Politicians lie, both parties.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

Startin' to look like ol' Sadam had better reason for Gulf War 1.

Reply to
wws

ignoramous opines: >In fact, the true reason why he attacked Iraq and not, say, a much

easy to see why you picked your handle :o) Greg Sefton

Reply to
Bray Haven

"Gunner" I notice that the only state todate to be caught out having WMD that were supposed to be destroyed was the US when some 300 tons of banned NBC munitions were found at a site in Washington ????

Reply to
The Rifleman

You forgot the lying traitorous scumbag Tony Blair.

Reply to
The Rifleman

Oil, nah. We are referring to the present conflict in Iraq as the "Halliburton War."

Regards,

Marv

jim rozen wrote:

Reply to
Marv Soloff

Forget the war, I want to know the truth about the pretzel story.

ff

Reply to
ff

And the nearly irelavnt pisant scum Little Johnny Howard

Reply to
Myal

LOL Was thinking much the same thing.

Ignats wrote:

By now, it is clear that Bush had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and was lying throughout the whole affair.

So, did Clinton have or not have evidence? Since he may or not have lied and that has past, is that now excusable?

michael

Reply to
michael

Or for that matter, what about Bush Sr? Or Reagan? Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc.

You might as well ask about them too. They were presidents once, too. Just like Clinton was.

He's gone folks. No sense in blaming any more adminstration stuff on him. Gotta find some other scapegoat.

Maybe, an ex CIA agent. That's it, we'll out a CIA agent because her spouse pissed us off. Oh. Done that already. Next idea...

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

So tell us, Gunner, when did you suddenly come to believe Bill Cl>I suppose now would be a good place to insert a few non-sequiters from Herr

Google recalled it, too... :-)

Al Moore

Reply to
Alan Moore

It is, idiot?

Got any proof?

ral

Reply to
Richard Lewis

I don't think that Clinton lied about Iraq and WMD's but I do think he used Iraq and Bin Laden to provide cover for his all too human horndog tendencies.

It has been the position of the USA and the UN that Iraq had WMD's since the '80's. "Saddam is/was an evil man, a really bad guy" an Iranian chap confided to me , "but what right does the US have to take him out?" An other guy said later, "Okay so maybe getting rid of Saddam was the moral thing to do but what gives us the right?" Guys, I am just a dumb ass machinist, help me with this: evil is bad, moral is good; where am I confused?

I have not heard any one defend Saddam, who will stand to do so? Kent

Reply to
Kent Frazier

I can't wait for the US election. How many more months of this stuff? ;-)

Maybe the Parliamentary election-type timetable has something to offer- about the duration of the gubernatorial recall campaign in California.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

Jim says>He's gone folks. No sense in blaming any more

You missed the point, Jim. The dumbocrats are insinuating that the whole idea that Iraq had WMD's was cooked up by Dubya to press his personal agenda. Which, of course, is nonsense. Election coming up though. What do you expect? Greg Sefton

Reply to
Bray Haven

Proof of what? That he had no evidence? That's simple, he has not produced any evidence that he had at the time when he launched the war.

That he was lying? Just refer to his earlier speeches about dangers of Iraqi WMD...

i
Reply to
Ignoramus6463

We don't need to be on some crusade to liberate the Iraqis or any other people suffering under an evil leader. Whether he is an evildoer or not is completely irrelevant, we do not have the resources to rid the world of evil. The question is whether he posed a threat to the US and our allies, and whether we are now safer as a result of the invasion and ongoing occupation. If we keep on following neocon foreign policy, soon we'll be as safe as the Israelis.

Reply to
ATP

Oh. I guess I missed that. Everyone knows the *real* reason he cooked up the war was to try to distract everyone from the fact that they're all out of work. New plan, take all the folks without jobs, make them soldiers, and send them overseas.

Look Poppy, no more unemployemnt!

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.