's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Since we haven't yet discovered WMD, I thought ...(9 posts)

Since we haven't yet discovered WMD, I thought ...Live Steam
Sep 9, 2003 7:00 PM
we should review some history about them. The letter attached is self explanatory. We know, or at least the authors of this letter thought they knew what Saddam had back in 1998. I would like someone that is/was against the war with Iraq, to explain to us why these people would write this letter to then President Bill Clinton and what they believed happened to the WMD. Please make a logical argument that they no longer exist and cite proof that they have been destroyed.

I am sick and tired of the partisan hypocrisy. Look at the names attached to this letter. The only one that still has some credibility is Lieberman. At least he hasn't changed his stance on Iraq since signing this letter.
i see nothing in that letterrufus
Sep 9, 2003 8:17 PM
that even mentions WMD's. what i do see is a letter pressing for action to make saddam live up to the inspections he agreed to upon cessation of the 1991 gulf war. those inspections were needed to look for and disarm or destroy any weapons he possessed that were in violation. it doesn't say that these people knew these weapons existed, what these weapons were, or in what quantities. that's why they needed inspections, so they could verify the truth one way or another. it simply says that saddam has to live up to the agreements he signed.

btw, an article in my local paper sunday said that the former inspectors saidf the missing wmd's could be attributed to discrepancies in iraqi paperwork, or even to those in charge of the programs to inflate the numbers they had on hand to satisfy production demands from saddam.
ok, i missed it, it did mention wmd's.rufus
Sep 9, 2003 8:19 PM
however, my argument remains the same.
Who cares? (and) So what?filtersweep
Sep 10, 2003 5:11 AM
The question IS and WILL BE- are we any safer NOW that we have invaded and occupied an arab nation? What are we getting for this enormous price in dollars and human life?

What happened to WMD? It is quite simple. Saddam largely dismantled the projects. Unfortunately, due to his temperment, he had surrounded himself with a bunch of "yesmen" who did not orient him to harsh realities regarding the US. Saddam was grandstanding on the WMD issue (a STRATEGIC counterintelligence issue for him- think about it) even though he had none, for he never imagined the US would actually invade. Rather he thought there would be a few missles launched his way like when Clinton was still around.

Captured Iraqis still reporting the existence of WMD are also part of the counterintelligence issue- and they don't even know it. Saddam grossly miscalculated the US response, thinking the UN would hinder the US from actually attacking.

It is all very plausible.

BTW- don't give me this "partisan hypocrisy" crapola- Bush made an enormous blunder in his failure to anticipate the issues and costs of reconstruction-
It's all Bill Clinton's fault.......nmMR_GRUMPY
Sep 10, 2003 5:51 AM
More important reading to refresh your memoryLive Steam
Sep 10, 2003 10:10 AM
Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton Says

By Linda D. Kozaryn

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON -- A month ago, the United States called off its war
planes to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to cooperate. When
he failed to do so, the United States took action.

President Clinton ordered air strikes Dec. 16 against Iraq's
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its
military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Warships and combat
aircraft began bombarding the defiant Gulf state at 5 p.m. EST -
- 1 a.m. in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.

"The international community gave Saddam one last chance to
resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors," Clinton said.
"Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act

Less than an hour after American and British forces launched
Operation Desert Fox, the president addressed the nation to
explain his decision. He said the attack was designed to protect
the national interests of the United States and the interests of
people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or
the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"
Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against
his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

The strikes culminated the second showdown with Iraq in the past
month. Clinton turned back U.S. warplanes bound for Iraq Nov. 14
when Hussein backed down in the face of intense diplomatic
pressure backed by overwhelming military force. At the time, the
Iraqi leader agreed to cooperate unconditionally with the U.N.
Special Commission.

"I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use
restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his
willingness to cooperate," the president said. The confrontation
wasn't over, but simply on hold -- Clinton said at the time that
the United States would be prepared to act "without delay,
diplomacy or warning" if Saddam failed again.

Over the next three weeks, U.N. weapons inspectors tested Iraq's
willingness to cooperate. UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler
reported Dec. 15 to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Butler's conclusions, Clinton said, proved to be "stark,
sobering and profoundly disturbing." Instead of living up to its
agreement, he said, "Iraq has abused its final chance."

He said Iraq had placed new restrictions on the inspectors,
further obstructed inspections and failed to turn over all
requested documents. In one instance, the Iraqis removed all
documents, furniture and equipment from a building prior to a
U.N. inspection.

Butler's report concluded Iraq has ensured U.N. inspectors could
make no progress toward disarmament. Even if the inspectors
could stay in Iraq, Clinton said, their work would be a sham.

"Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness," he said.
"Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, the Iraqi dictator
has disarmed the inspectors."

Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that
Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. He said he
deemed military action necessary to prove the international
community, led by the United States, had not lost its will.
Failure to act, Clinton said, would have "fatally undercut the
fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination
in the region."

In a Pentagon briefing immediately following the president's
address to the nation, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and
Army Gen. Hugh
More important reading to refresh your memoryLive Steam
Sep 10, 2003 10:13 AM
The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein

As the date approaches for likely Congressional action on an Iraq resolution, Democrats have begun sounding the alarms of dissent. Hinting at a "Wag the Dog" scenario, they have questioned whether Iraq truly poses a clear and present danger to the United States and implied that the Bush Administration may only be acting with an eye toward November. Speaking on the floor last week, Senator Byrd appears to have gotten this latest ball rolling:

"What Congress needs is solid evidence. What we need are answers. Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the United States? Should the United States act alone as this administration has been threatening to do? Should Congress grant the President authority to launch a preemptive attack on Iraq?" [floor statement, 9/20/02]

Al Gore followed suit on Monday, albeit in much stronger terms, expressing concern that "[the President] is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq." Gore went on to add, "no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such choice is not presented in the case of Iraq" [speech, 9/23/02].

Few would disagree that legitimate questions remain to be considered regarding our policy toward Iraq, among them such issues as the scope of the authority given the President to act and the likely long-term U.S. investment in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. However, questions over the evil nature of the regime and whether or not it poses a threat to our interests seem already to have been addressed, as the following statements attest.

These statements - by leading Democrat Senators - spell out a strong case against Iraq, and they have another thing in common - all were made in 1998. Yet, if the threat was real then, it only stands to reason that it has grown over the last four years, a fact supported by the testimony of Iraqi defectors as well as recent intelligence reports as to the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities of Baghdad.

Senator Daschle:

"Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. 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. . . . The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist - it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Biden:

"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Lieberman:

"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its
More quotes from a great President - <big>guess who</big> :O)Live Steam
Sep 10, 2003 10:24 AM
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

"In short, the inspectors are saying that, even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors."

"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

These are all very salient points made by a great President.
Continued from above (oops)Live Steam
Sep 10, 2003 10:57 AM
Senator Lieberman:

"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we have something in our law called 'three strikes and you are out,' three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here. . . . What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Levin:

"Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that Saddam Hussein will finally get it. . . . Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Kerry:

"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses." [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.]

In fairness, a few of these Senators have continued to recognize this increased threat and maintained a certain level of consistency on the subject. Unfortunately, others have not.

Consider the following remarks by a key Democrat: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass de