If bush is normal and sane ,why did he lead all America to believe there were WMD,s in Iraq?

Question

and push the dem,s to support his brain fart?

Answer 1

I guess you didn't realize they had been saying that for ten years before bush was in office:





http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html



"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."



Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)

Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq

December 16, 1998

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm









"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."



Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)

During an interview on "Meet The Press"

November 17, 2002

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=375









"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."



Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)

Addressing the US Senate

October 10, 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/

cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record











"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."



Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)

September 13, 2001

http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm











"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more 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, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.



If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."



President Clinton

Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff

February 17, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/









"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.



If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."



Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate

During an interview on "Face The Nation"

September 29, 2002

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_092902.pdf









"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."



Former President Clinton

During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"

July 22, 2003

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/









"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."



Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

Addressing the US Senate

October 9, 2002

Congressional Record, p. S10145

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/

cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record











"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 a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."



President Clinton

Oval Office Address to the American People

December 16, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html









"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."



Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)

Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq

March 17, 2003

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103









Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:



WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.



MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?



WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.



MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?



WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.



Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate

During an interview on CNN

January 18, 2003

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html









"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."



Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)

Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq

March 20, 2003

http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=191582









Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:



"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."



Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)

During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"

February 24, 2002

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html









"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.



No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."



Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)

Speech at Drake University in Iowa

December 16, 2003

http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec03/193182.asp?format=print









John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:



"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."



Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)

US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of

United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"

October 10, 2002

http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html









"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."



Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)

During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina

May 3, 2003

http://www.vote-smart.org/debate_transcripts/trans_1.pdf









"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."



Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)

Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

September 27, 2002

http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html









"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."



Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)

Addressing the US Senate

October 10, 2002

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html









John Kerry, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:



"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."



Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)

Addressing the US Senate

October 9, 2002

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html









"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.



The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."



Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)

US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"

September 12, 2002

http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html









"Without question, we 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. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. 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.



In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."



Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)

Speech at Georgetown University

January 23, 2003

http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831









Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:



BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:



And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?



REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:



I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.



SCHIEFFER:



Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?



GEPHARDT:



I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.



Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)

Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"

November 2, 2003

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml









"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."



Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"

June 12, 2002

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802









"[W]e have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.



Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam."



Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)

In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled: "Why Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq"

October 7, 2002

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002391









"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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."



Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State

Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University

February 18, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html









"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He 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 ten times since 1983."



Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor

Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University

February 18, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html









"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."



Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State

Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University

February 18, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/











"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."



James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman

In a PBS documentary titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution"

July 11, 2002

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/









"Dear Mr. President: ... We 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."



Sincerely,



Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.



Letter to President Clinton

Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others

October 9, 1998

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html











"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.



We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."



Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President

Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club

September 23, 2002



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm



http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,797999,00.html



http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/24/1032734161501.html









Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.



The New York Times

Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq

February 13, 2002

http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482











"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 C. Byrd

Former Ku Klux Klan recruiter, currently a US Senator (Democrat, West Virginia)

Addressing the US Senate

October 3, 2002



http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_oct2002/rls_oct2002/rls_oct2002_2.html



http://australianpolitics.com/news/2002/10/02-10-03a.shtml



http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2002/byrd100302.htm









"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."



Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector

Addressing the UN Security Council

January 27, 2003

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6



http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix









"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."



Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector

Addressing the UN Security Council

January 27, 2003

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6



http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix









"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."



Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector

Addressing the UN Security Council

January 27, 2003

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6



http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix









"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."



Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector

Addressing the UN Security Council

January 27, 2003

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6



http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix









"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.



What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?



Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.



And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."



President Clinton

Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff

February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/









CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?



HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.



Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years

Interviewed on CNN

October 22, 2001

http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/









Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:



The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:



"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."



Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

105th Congress, 2nd Session

September 29, 1998

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm









CNN

October 10, 2002



House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq



The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction.



http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us









CNN

October 11, 2002



Senate approves Iraq war resolution



In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.



http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us









"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."



President Bush

State of the Union address

January 28, 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html









"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.



But this isn't just a future threat. 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.



As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.



September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.



There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!



The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."



Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)

Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee

Addressing the US Senate

October 10, 2002

http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html









UN weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998:



CNN

November 5, 1998



U.N. Security Council votes to condemn Iraq



The United Nations Security Council late Thursday voted unanimously to condemn Iraq and to demand that Baghdad immediately resume cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. Baghdad has already said it will not comply.



The resolution called Iraq's decision last week to halt cooperation with the U.N. Special Commission a "flagrant violation" of the 1991 resolution on Iraqi disarmament. It is the 45th U.N. resolution involving Iraq since the country invaded Kuwait in 1990.



http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/05/un.iraq.02









America is threatened by an "unholy axis":



"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.



We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.



Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."



President Clinton

State of the Union address

January 27, 1998



http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html



http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3









"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.



I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.



What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.



The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.



The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.



This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.



We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.



The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."



Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)

Addressing the US Senate

September 12, 2002

http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html











"Dear Mr. President:



The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.



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.



The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.



Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."



Sincerely,



Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)

Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)

Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)

Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)





Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)

Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)

Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)

Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)

Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)

Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)







Letter to President Bush

December 5, 2001

http://www.house.gov/ford/12_06_01a.htm









"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."



Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California)

Addressing the US Congress

October 10, 2002



http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm



http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/pdfs/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.pdf









"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."



President Clinton

National Address from the Oval Office

December 16, 1998



http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html



http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Answer 2

Do your homework The intellagence reports even when Clinton was in office said the same thing. As a matter of fact some of the Dems believed that action should be taken but it never happened. Bush like Clinton listened to intel and made dicissions based on the reports. I don't believe Clinton or Bush had bad intel: the weapons were there. When Bush started talking of invading Iraq and was forced to try and rally support it gave Saddam time to send weapons to other countries or to hide them in the desert. Some old mustard gas has been found but The anti bush media will not report on that.

Answer 3

Probably because the UN, France, Germany and the UK all had reported That they did. He wasn't just sitting in the oval office thinking up ways to invade Iraq. How do you know for a fact that Iraq didn't have WMD and got rid of them before we came into the country? Besides the fact that they did find materials that were used to make WMD's. Saddam had plenty of time to move what he didn't want us to find, where could he have put them, lets see maybe SYRIA!

Answer 4

I'm not going to answer I just wanted to say thanks for picking me as your best answer when I wrote this : Do democrats understand what loosing the war will do to the us? Do they understand that if we just get out of there we loose? Do democrats understand that abortion is murder(it says it in the bible, koran, and just moral goodness and whats right)? Do democrats understand that global warming is not real (if you look back the earth takes natural weather patterns)? Do democrats understand that gays and lesbians are wrong (it it says it in the bible, koran, and just moral goodness and whats right)? Do democrats understand that here in the south we need guns(yes I am a smart hillbilly and proud of it, we have much better values that you city people well some city people some are good)? Do democrats know that stem cell research is taking a possible life? Please answer these, oh wait your most likely a democrat, just don't hurt yourself trying to answer!!!!!! Oh yea tell me something else what about education. It is right to get the info of of the terrorists in prison any way you can!!!!!! If you don't then you're going to get blown up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... Anyway Thanx and bye

Answer 5

regrettably what you submit is genuine. it truly is quite unhappy. and many are clinging to the old mustard gas stumbled on those days as information that WMDs were present day. even besides the undeniable fact that the military and the intelligence agencies are holding that those previous mustard gas boxes were inspected and previously universal to have existed. i have self assurance a poster answering your question alludes to this reality. Pathetic that many human beings do no longer opt for the reality, yet might want to really pay interest to propaganda and talk radio morons.

Answer 6

When the intelligence agencies of five nations all concur about something as important as WMD, it would be insane NOT to take it seriously.



BTW, you might want to review who voted for the war. All the heroes of the left did so.





EDIT: Spelling isn't your strong suit is it, Che? The President has a duty to protect the United States from its enemies. When he believed (based on reports from the intelligence agencies of FIVE different nations) that Saddam posessed WMD, he had no viable option other than eliminating that threat.

Answer 7

Because they did have WMD. Saddam dropped chemical weapons on his own people. The town of Halabjah was bombed and 5,000 people died in a single attack. Men, women, children.



Bill Clinton thought there was WMD in 1998 when he wanted to go to war with Iraq.



The Anfal Campaign was the name of the ethnic cleansing Saddam gave to killing almost 180,000 people.









Civilian - If you are not open to all points of view and understanding the truth whether it agrees with your opinion or not, then why did you ask this question?

Answer 8

I can quote you at least 100 Democrats that swore there were WMD.

I can quote you at least 10 world leaders that swore there were WMD.

I can quote you the UN resolution saying there were WMD and giving us the authority to use force.



You are so incredibly stupid, how do you breathe?

Answer 9

Every intel service in the world said that Saddam had WMD's. Bush drew the ONLY sane conclusion from this.

Answer 10

do you feel embarrassed to ask questions like this?



Reasons for Iraq



WMDs were only one of 23 UN resolutions that Sadam violated.



While Sadam and laden were opposed by faith, they were united in hate against America........

Sadam allowed Zaraqawi to build an Al Qaida camp in Iraq.



Laden was exploring the option of moving his operations to Iraq



Sadam provided training manuals for Al Qaeda



Sadam funded the attack on the USS Cole.



Sadam paid a reward to the spouses of suicide bombers

Answer 11

"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



"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



"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998



"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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



"We 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.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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



"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e 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



I THINK WE WERE GOING INTO IRAQ NO MATTER WHO WON THE PRESIDENCY!!!!

Answer 12

because Clinton told him the same thing.

Answer 13

It was to send troops to Iraq.

VR

Answer 14

I bet you beat old horses, too.

Answer 15

simple because he is a tool. i mean at the least we could have been shown a missile strapped to a camels back or something

Answer 16

Because he thought there was....?

Answer 17

well he is normal if you call a southern red neck normal

Answer 18

It was a SLAM DUNK!! Remember!!

Answer 19

he wanted to take Iraq and he didn't want to tell us the real reason



apparently he didn't think we would buy it

Answer 20

Wednesday, December 16, 1998



Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike



CLINTON: Good evening.



Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.



Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed 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.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.



Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.



The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.



The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.



The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.



The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.



Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.



Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.



When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.



I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. 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.



I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.



Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.



The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.



In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.



Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.



Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.



It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.



Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.



Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.



So Iraq has abused its final chance.



As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.



"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."



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.



And so we had to act and act now.



Let me explain why.



First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.



Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.



Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.



That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.



They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.



At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.



If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.



Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.



That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.



Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.



So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.



First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.



The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.



Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.



We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.



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 a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.



The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.



Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.



We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.



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're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.



Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.



But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.



In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.



Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.