John manning 2012-08-09 21:14:32
That isn’t completely accurate Randy. Here’s an in depth analysis by
NEWSWEEK. Let’s see if you can review this material as carefully as you
have reviewed the evidence you’ve gathered about Mormonism.
Cheney’s Long Path to War
By Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas, Newsweek
NEWSWEEK (Issue: Nov 17, 2003)
Every Thursday, President George W. Bush and Vice President D*** Cheney
have lunch together in a small dining room off the Oval Office. They eat
alone; no aides are present. They have no fixed agenda, but it’s a safe
assumption that they often talk about intelligence–about what the
United States knows, or doesn’t know, about the terrorist threat.
THE PRESIDENT RESPECTS Cheney’s judgment, say White House aides, and
values the veep’s long experience in the intelligence community (as
President Gerald Ford’s chief of staff, as a member of the House
Intelligence Committee in the 1980s and as secretary of Defense in the
George H.W. Bush administration). As vice president, Cheney is free to
roam about the various agencies, quizzing analysts and top spooks about
terrorists and their global connections. “This is a very important area.
It’s the one the president asked me to work on … I ask a lot of hard
questions,” Cheney told NBC’s Tim Russert last September. “That’s my job.”
Of all the president’s advisers, Cheney has consistently taken the most
dire view of the terrorist threat. On Iraq, Bush was the decision maker.
But more than any adviser, Cheney was the one to make the case to the
president that war against Iraq was an urgent necessity. Beginning in
the late summer of 2002, he persistently warned that Saddam was stocking
up on chemical and biological weapons, and last March, on the eve of the
invasion, he declared that “we believe that he [Saddam Hussein] has in
fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (Cheney later said that he meant
“program,” not “weapons.” He also said, a bit optimistically, “I really
do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.”) After seven months,
investigators are still looking for that arsenal of WMD.
Cheney has repeatedly suggested that Baghdad has ties to Al Qaeda. He
has pointedly refused to rule out suggestions that Iraq was somehow to
blame for the 9/11 attacks and may even have played a role in the
terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. The CIA and FBI, as
well as a congressional investigation into the 9/11 attacks, have
dismissed this conspiracy theory. Still, as recently as Sept. 14, Cheney
continued to leave the door open to Iraqi complicity. He brought up a
report–widely discredited by U.S. intelligence officials–that 9/11
hijacker Muhammad Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in
Prague in April 2001. And he described Iraq as “the geographic base of
the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most
especially on 9/11.” A few days later, a somewhat sheepish President
Bush publicly corrected the vice president. There was no evidence, Bush
admitted, to suggest that the Iraqis were behind 9/11.
Cheney has long been regarded as a Washington wise man. He has a dry,
deliberate manner; a penetrating, if somewhat wintry, wit, and a
historian’s long-view sensibility. He is far to the right politically,
but in no way wild-eyed; in private conversation he seems moderate,
thoughtful, cautious. Yet when it comes to terrorist plots, he seems to
have given credence to the views of some fairly flaky ideologues and
charlatans. Writing recently in The New Yorker, investigative reporter
Seymour Hersh alleged that Cheney had, in effect, become the dupe of a
cabal of neoconservative full-mooners, the Pentagon’s mysteriously named
Office of Special Plans and the patsy of an alleged bank swindler and
would-be ruler of Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi.\0
A Cheney aide took strong exception to the notion that the vice
president was at the receiving end of some kind of private pipeline for
half-baked or fraudulent intelligence, or that he was somehow carrying
water for the neocons or anyone else’s self-serving agendas. “That’s an
urban myth,” said this aide, who declined to be identified. Cheney has
cited as his “gold standard” the National Intelligence Estimate, a
consensus report put out by the entire intelligence community. And,
indeed, an examination of the declassified version of the NIE reveals
some pretty alarming warnings. “Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear
weapons program,” the October 2002 NIE states.
Nonetheless, it appears that Cheney has been susceptible to
“cherry-picking,” embracing those snippets of intelligence that support
his dark prognosis while discarding others that don’t. He is widely
regarded in the intelligence community as an outlier, as a man who
always goes for the worst-case –scenario and sometimes overlooks less
alarming or at least ambiguous signs. Top intelligence officials reject
the suggestion that Cheney has somehow bullied lower-level CIA or
Defense Intelligence Agency analysts into telling him what he wants to
hear. But they do describe the Office of the Vice President, with its
large and assertive staff, as a kind of free-floating power base that at
times brushes aside the normal policymaking machinery under
national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice. On the road to war, Cheney
in effect created a parallel government that became the real power center.
Cheney, say those who know him, is in no way cynically manipulative. By
all accounts, he is genuinely convinced that the threat is imminent and
menacing. Professional intelligence analysts can offer measured, nuanced
opinions, but policymakers, Cheney likes to say, have to decide. As he
put it last July in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, “How
could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat?” And yet
Cheney seems to have rung the warning bell a little too loudly and
urgently. If nothing else, his apparently exaggerated alarms over Iraq,
WMD and the terror connection may make Americans slow to respond the
next time he sees a wolf at the door.
What is it about Cheney s character and background that makes him such a
Cassandra? And did his powerful dirge drown out more-modulated voices in
the councils of power in Washington and in effect launch America on the
path to war? Cheney declined an interview request from NEWSWEEK, but
interviews with his aides and a wide variety of sources in the
intelligence and national-security community paint the portrait of a
vice president who may be too powerful for his own good.
Cheney, say those who know him, has always had a Hobbesian view of life.
The world is a dangerous place; war is the natural state of mankind;
enemies lurk. The national-security state must be strong, vigilant and
wary. Cheney believes that America s military and intelligence
establishments were weakened by defeat in Vietnam and the wave of
scandals that followed in Watergate in the 70s and Iran-contra in the
80s. He did not regard as progress the rise of congressional
investigating committees, special prosecutors and an increasingly
adversarial, aggressive press. Cheney is a strong believer in the
necessity of government secrecy as well as more broadly the need to
preserve and protect the power of the executive branch.
He never delivers these views in a rant. Rather, Cheney talks in a low,
arid voice, if at all. He usually waits until the end of a meeting to
speak up, and then speaks so softly and cryptically, out of one side of
his mouth, so that people have to lean forward to hear. (In a babble of
attention-seekers, this can be a powerful way of getting heard.) Cheney
rarely shows anger or alarm, but on occasion his exasperation emerges.
One such moment came at the end of the first gulf war in 1991. Cheney
was secretary of Defense, and arms inspectors visiting defeated Iraq had
discovered that Saddam Hussein was much closer to building a nuclear
weapon than anyone had realized. Why, Cheney wondered aloud to his
aides, had a steady stream of U.S. intelligence experts beaten a path to
his door before the war to say that the Iraqis were at least five to 10
years away from building a bomb? Years later, in meetings of the second
President Bush s war cabinet, Cheney would return again and again to the
question of how Saddam could create an entire hidden nuclear program
without the CIA s knowing much, if anything, about it.
Cheney s suspicions about both the strength of Iraq and the weakness of
U.S. intelligence agencies were fed after he left government. Cheney
spent a considerable amount of time with the scholars and backers of the
American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank that has served
as a conservative government-in-waiting. Cheney was on the board of
directors and his wife, Lynne, a conservative activist on social issues,
still keeps an office there as a resident fellow. At various lunches
and dinners around Washington, sponsored by AEI and other conservative
organizations, Cheney came in contact with other foreign-policy
hard-liners or neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and
Douglas Feith. It was an article of faith in the AEI crowd that the
United States had missed a chance to knock off Saddam in 1991; that
Saddam was rebuilding his stockpile of WMD, and that sooner or later the
Iraqi strongman would have to go. When some dissidents in northern Iraq
tried to mount an insurrection with CIA backing in the mid- 90s and
failed, the conservatives blamed the Clinton administration for showing
weakness. Clinton s national-security adviser, Tony Lake, had, it was
alleged, pulled the plug.
In the late 90s, Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of one of the resistance
groups, the Iraqi National Congress, began cultivating and lobbying
intellectuals, journalists and political leaders in Washington. Chalabi
had a shadowy past; his family, exiled from Iraq in the late 50s, had
set up a banking empire through the Middle East that collapsed in
charges of fraud in 1989. (Chalabi, who has always denied wrongdoing,
has been convicted and sentenced, in absentia, by a Jordanian military
court to 22 years of hard labor.) But operating out of London, the
smoothly persuasive Chalabi presented himself as a democratic answer to
Saddam Hussein. With a little American backing, he promised, he could
rally the Iraqi people to overthrow the Butcher of Baghdad.
Chalabi was hailed in some circles, especially among the neocons at AEI,
as the George Washington of Iraq. But the professionals at the State
Department and at the CIA took a more skeptical view. In 1999, after
Congress had passed and President Bill Clinton had signed the Iraqi
Liberation Act, providing funds to support Iraqi exile groups, the U.S.
government convened a conference with the INC and other opposition
groups in London to discuss regime change. The Americn officials
proposed bringing INC activists to America for training. Chalabi s aides
objected. Most of the likely candidates were Iraqi refugees living in
various European countries. By coming to the United States, they could
lose their refugee status. Some Pentagon officials shook their heads in
disbelief. You had to wonder, said one who attended the conference,
how serious were these people. They kept telling us they wanted to risk
their lives for their country. But they were afraid to risk their
refugee status in Sweden?
After the Republicans regained the White House in 2001, many of the
neocons took top national-security jobs. Perle, the man closest to
Chalabi, chose to stay on the outside (where he kept a lucrative
lobbying practice). But Wolfowitz and Feith became, respectively, the
No. 2 and No. 3 man at the Defense Department, and a former Wolfowitz
aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, became the vice president s chief of
staff. Once the newcomers took over, the word went out that any
disparaging observations about Chalabi or the INC were no longer
appreciated. The view was, If you weren t a total INC guy, then you re
on the wrong side , said a Pentagon official. It was, We re not going
to trash the INC anymore and Ahmad Chalabi is an Iraqi patriot who
risked his life for his country .
Some neocons began agitating inside the Bush administration to support
some kind of insurrection, led by Chalabi, that would overthrow Saddam.
In the summer of 2001, the neocons circulated a plan to support an
INC-backed invasion. A senior Pentagon analyst questioned whether Iraqis
would rise up to back it. You re thinking like the Clinton people, a
Feith aide shot back. They planned for failure. We plan for success.
It is important to note that at this early stage, the neocons did not
have the enthusiastic backing of Vice President Cheney. Just because
Cheney had spent a lot of time around the Get Saddam neocons does not
mean that he had become one, says an administration aide. It s a
mistake to add up two and two and get 18, he says. Cheney s cautious
side kept him from leaping into any potential Bay of Pigs covert actions.
What changed Cheney was not Chalabi or his friends from AEI, but the
9/11 attacks. For years Cheney had feared and warned against a terrorist
attack on an American city. The hijacked planes that plowed into the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon confirmed his suspicions of American
vulnerability though by no means his worst fears that the terrorists
would use a biological or nuclear weapon. 9/11 changed everything,
Cheney began saying to anyone who would listen. It was no longer enough
to treat terrorism as a law-enforcement matter, Cheney believed. The
United States had to find ways to act against the terrorists before they
Cheney began collecting intelligence on the threat anywhere he could
find it. Along with Libby, his chief of staff, the vice president began
showing up at the CIA and DIA for briefings. Cheney would ask probing
questions from different analysts in various agencies and then, later
with his staff, connect the dots. Such an aggressive national-security
role by a vice president was unusual. So was the sheer size of Cheney s
staff about 60 people, much larger than the size of Al Gore s. The
threat from germ warfare was a particular concern of Cheney s. After
9/11, Libby kept calling over to the Defense Department, asking what the
military was doing to guard against a bio attack from crop-dusters. In
July 2002, Cheney made a surprise, unpublicized visit to the Centers for
Disease Control in Atlanta. He wanted to question directly the
public-health experts about their efforts to combat bioterrorism. If not
for the traffic snarls caused by his motorcade, his visit might have
remained a secret.
There was, within the administration, another office parsing through
intelligence on the Iraqi and terror threat. The Office of Special Plans
was so secretive at first that the director, William Luti, did not even
want to mention its existence. Don t ever talk about this, Luti told
his staff, according to a source who attended early meetings. If
anybody asks, just say no comment. (Luti does not recall this, but he
does regret choosing such a spooky name for the office.) The Office of
Special Plans has sometimes been described as an intelligence cell,
along the lines of Team B, set up by the Ford administration in the
1970s to second-guess the CIA when conservatives believed that the
intelligence community was underestimating the Soviet threat. But OSP is
more properly described as a planning group planning for war in Iraq.
Some of the OSP staffers were true believers. Abe Shulsky, a defense
intellectual who ran the office under Luti, was a Straussian, a student
of a philosopher named Leo Strauss, who believed that ancient texts had
hidden meanings that only an elite could divine. Strauss taught that
philosophers needed to tell noble lies to the politicians and the people.
The OSP gathered up bits and pieces of intelligence that pointed to
Saddam s WMD programs and his ties to terror groups. The OSP would
prepare briefing papers for administration officials to use. The OSP
also drew on reports of defectors who alleged that Saddam was hiding bio
and chem weapons under hospitals and schools. Some of these defectors
were provided to the intelligence community by Chalabi, who also fed
them to large news organizations, like The New York Times. Vanity Fair
published a few of the more lurid reports, deemed to be bogus by U.S.
intelligence agencies (like one alleging that Saddam was running a
terrorist-training camp, complete with a plane fuselage in which to
practice hijackings). The CIA was skeptical about the motivation and
credibility of these defectors, but their stories gained wide circulation.
Cheney s staffers were in more than occasional contact with the OSP.
Luti, an intense and brilliant former naval aviator who flew combat
missions in the gulf war, worked in Cheney s office before he took over
OSP, and was well liked by Cheney s staff. Luti s office had absorbed a
small, secretive intelligence-analysis shop in the Pentagon known as
Team B (after the original Team B) whose research linked 9/11 to both Al
Qaeda and the Iranian terror group Hizbullah. The team was particularly
fascinated by the allegation that 9/11 hijacker Muhammad Atta had met in
Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent. One of Team B s creators David
Wurmser now works on Cheney s staff. Libby went to at least one briefing
with Team B staffers at which they discussed Saddam s terror
connections. It would be a mistake, however, to overstate the influence
of OSP on Cheney or his staff. Cheney collected information from many
sources, but principally from the main intelligence agencies, the CIA
and DIA. Likewise, Cheney s aides say that they talked to Chalabi and
his people about opposition politics not about WMD or terrorism. ( The
whole idea that we were mainlining dubious INC reports into the
intelligence community is simply nonsense, Paul Wolfowitz told NEWSWEEK.)
There has been much speculation in the press and in the intelligence
community about the impact of the conspiracy theories of Laurie Mylroie
on the Bush administration. A somewhat eccentric Harvard-trained
political scientist, Mylroie argued (from guesswork and sketchy
evidence) that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was an Iraqi
intelligence operation. When AEI published an updated version of her
book Study of Revenge two years ago, her acknowledgments cited the
help of, among others, Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State John Bolton
and Libby. But Cheney aides say that the vice president has never even
discussed Mylroie s book. ( I take satisfaction in the fact that we went
to war with Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein, said Mylroie. The rest
is details. )
Cheney is hardly the only intelligence adviser to the president. CIA
Director George Tenet briefs the president every morning. But Tenet was
often caught up defending his agency. Cheney feels free to criticize,
and he does. Cheney was very distrustful and remains very distrustful
of the traditional intelligence establishment, says a former White
House official. He thinks they are too cautious or too invested in
their own policy concerns. Cheney is not as passionate in his
dissents as Wolfowitz, the leading intellectual neocon in the
administration. But he carries more clout.
Cheney often teams up with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to roll
over national-security adviser Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
OVP [Cheney s office] and OSD [Rumsfeld s office] turned into their own
axis of evil, grouses a former White House official, who added that
Cheney and Rumsfeld shared the same strategic vision: pessimistic and
dark. Some observers see a basic breakdown in the government. Rice has
chosen to play more of an advisory role to the president and failed to
coordinate the often warring agencies like State and Defense. Cheney
was acting as national-security adviser because of Rice s failure to do
so, says Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and
State Department staffers say that Cheney s office pushed hard to
include dubious evidence of Iraq s terror ties in Powell s speech to the
United Nations last February. Libby fought for an inclusion of the
alleged meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Powell
resisted, but Powell s aides were impressed with Libby s persistence. In
the end, the reference to Atta was dropped, but Powell did include other
examples linking Baghdad to Al Qaeda. When the State Department wanted
to cut off funds to Chalabi for alleged accounting failures, Cheney
backed shifting the money from the State Department to the Defense
Department. It is significant, however, that Cheney ultimately did not
support setting up Chalabi as a government in exile, a ploy that the
State Department and CIA strongly opposed. They feared that Chalabi
would proclaim himself ruler-by-fiat after an American invasion. Though
Chalabi s people often talked to Cheney s staff, the vice president has
no particular brief for the INC chief over any other democratically
elected leader, says an administration official.
Accused of overstating the Iraqi threat by politicians and pundits,
Cheney is publicly and privately unrepentant. He believes that Al Qaeda
is determined to obtain weapons of mass destruction and use them against
American civilians in their cities and homes. To ignore those warnings
would be irresponsible in the extreme, he says in his speeches. His
staffers are not unmindful of the risk of crying wolf, however, and
acknowledge that if weapons of mass destruction are never found in Iraq,
the public will be much less likely to back pre-emptive wars in the
future. Cheney still believes the WMD will turn up somewhere in Iraq if
they aren t first used against us by terrorists.
With Tamara Lipper, Richard Wolffe and Roy Gutman
Thejordan6 2012-08-17 22:46:07
Remember Clinton’s war in Iraq?
February 20, 2003
The opponents of the Bush administration’s possible military action against
Iraq make the following arguments: “He’s simply trying to finish the job his
father started”; “No blood for oil”; “Iraq poses no imminent threat”; “Wars
kill innocent women and children”; “Allow the United Nations inspections to
proceed”; “Containment works”; “Avoid unilateralism, and proceed only with the
United Nations’ approval”; and the all-encompassing “No smoking gun exists
demonstrating that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction.”
But Bill Clinton, four years ago, took to the airwaves and explained his
authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very
same arguments now advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening.
Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to
strike military and security targets in Iraq. … Their mission is to attack
Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military
capacity to threaten its neighbors. … Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to
threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: “Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to
elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep
weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only
possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or
attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons,
Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and
create deadly havoc in that region.”
Clinton: “Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer
cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. … 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. … 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
Bush: “The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi
security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N.
inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors
Clinton: “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. … I have no doubt today, that left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”
Bush: “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. The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous
weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own
citizens dead, blind or disfigured.”
Clinton: “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. … 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. … 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.”
Bush: “Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president
can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war
have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we
know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek
peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future
lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced
upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way
we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full
force and might of the United States military.”
What a difference an administration makes.
Larry Elder, controversial radio talk-show host from Los Angeles, is the author
of the libertarian blockbuster “The Ten Things You Can’t Say in America.”
Thejordan6 2012-08-17 22:46:13
Democrats for Regime Change
From the September 16, 2002 issue: The president has some surprising allies.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/16/2002, Volume 008, Issue 01
THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an “outlaw nation” in
league with an “unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized
international criminals.” The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on
diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action.
The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi
Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the
U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation
to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein
“fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route
which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his 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
The president’s warnings are firm. “If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all
those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” The
stakes, he says, could not be higher. “Some day, some way, I guarantee you,
he’ll use the arsenal.”
These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of
President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the
Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had
briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a
month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it
won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.
But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another “deal” with the Iraqi
dictator–which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect–and
Saddam won again.
OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. The
situation has gotten worse. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan’s offer, he
kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we
bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement
of the no-fly zones. A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N.
created a new, toothless inspection regime. The new inspectors inspected
nothing. If Saddam Hussein was a major threat in February 1998, when President
Clinton prepared this country for war and U.N. inspectors were still inside
Iraq, it stands to reason that in the absence of those inspectors monitoring
his weapons build-up, Saddam is an even greater threat today.
But not, apparently, if you’re Tom Daschle. The Senate majority leader and his
fellow congressional Democrats have spent months criticizing the Bush
administration for its failure to make the “public case” for military
intervention in Iraq. Now that the Bush administration has begun to do so, many
of these same Democrats are rushing to erect additional obstacles.
“What has changed in recent months or years” to justify confronting Saddam,
Daschle asked last Wednesday after meeting with President Bush. D*** Gephardt
wants to know what a democratic Iraq would look like. Dianne Feinstein wants
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict settled first. Bob Graham says the
administration hasn’t presented anything new. John Kerry complains about, well,
Matters looked different in 1998, when Democrats were working with a president
of their own party. Daschle not only supported military action against Iraq, he
campaigned vigorously for a congressional resolution to formalize his support.
Other current critics of President Bush–including Kerry, Graham, Patrick
Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Republican Chuck Hagel–co-sponsored the broad
1998 resolution: Congress “urges the president to take all necessary and
appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs.” (Emphasis added.)
Daschle said the 1998 resolution would “send as clear a message as possible
that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily,
Iraq to comply with international law.” And he vigorously defended President
Clinton’s inclination to use military force in Iraq.
Summing up the Clinton administration’s argument, Daschle said, “‘Look, we have
exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with
their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option
is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the
key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to
force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
John Kerry was equally hawkish: “If there is not unfettered, unrestricted,
unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in
our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the
rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a
nation in order to be able to enforce those rights,” Kerry said back on
February 23, 1998. “Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made
it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity
and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the
Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist
activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not
exactly in the Middle East.”
Considering the views these Democrats expressed four years ago, why the current
reluctance to support President Bush?
Who knows? But if the president continues to run into stronger-than-expected
resistance from Democrats on Capitol Hill, he can always just recycle the
arguments so many Democrats accepted in 1998:
“Just consider the facts,” Bill Clinton urged.
“Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in
its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that
gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For
example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months
and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of
which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam’s son-in-law,
and chief organizer of Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to
Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles
and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to
developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks.
Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted
once Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.”
Clinton was on a roll:
“Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
offensive biological warfare capability–notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum,
which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud
warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that
Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut
UNSCOM. They’ve harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring
cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect
facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were
there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. ”
More Clinton: “We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st
century,” he argued. “They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to
build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to
deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear
example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
What more needs to be said?
Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.
Thejordan6 2012-08-17 22:46:16
Statement by US President Bill Clinton
December 19, 1998
Good evening. On Wednesday, I ordered our armed forces to strike military and
strategic targets in Iraq. They were joined by British forces.
That operation is now complete in accordance with our 70-hour plan. My national
security team has just briefed me on the results. They are preliminary, but let
me say just a few words about why we acted, what we have achieved and where we
want to go.
We began with this basic proposition: Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to
develop nuclear arms, poison gas, biological weapons or the means to deliver
He has used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his
own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked, he would do so again.
Saddam must not be prepared to defy the will ? be permitted, excuse me, to defy
the will of the international community. Without a firm response, he would have
been emboldened to do that again and again.
For 7 years now, the United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly
remarkable job in forcing Saddam to disclose and destroy weapons and missiles
he insisted he did not have.
But over the past year, Saddam has repeatedly sought to cripple the inspection
system. Each time, through intensive diplomatic efforts backed by the threat of
military action, Saddam has backed down. When he did so last month, I made it
absolutely clear that if he did not give UNSCOM full cooperation this time, we
would act swiftly and without further delay.
For three weeks, the inspectors tested Saddam’s commitment to cooperate. They
repeatedly ran into roadblocks and restrictions, some of them new.
As their chairman, Richard Butler, concluded in his report to the United
Nations on Tuesday, the inspectors no longer were able to do their job. So far
as I was concerned, Saddam’s days of cheat and retreat were over.
Our objectives in this military action were clear: to degrade Saddam’s weapons
of mass destruction program and related delivery systems as well as his
capacity to attack his neighbors.
It will take some time to make a detailed assessment of our operation. But
based on the briefing I have just received, I am confident we have achieved our
We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction
programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability,
and on his military and security infrastructure.
In a short while, Secretary Cohen and General Shelton will give you a more
detailed analysis from the Pentagon.
So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his
region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him
and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program while working toward
the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with
Let me describe the elements of that strategy going forward. First, we will
maintain a strong military presence in the area, and we will remain ready to
use it if Saddam tries to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, strikes out
at his neighbors, challenges allied aircraft or moves against the Kurds.
We also will continue to enforce no-fly zones in the north and from the
southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwaiti border.
Second, we will sustain what have been among the most extensive sanctions in
U.N. history. To date, they have cost Saddam more than $120 billion—resources
that otherwise would have gone toward rebuilding his military.
At the same time, we will support a continuation of the oil for food program,
which generates more than $10 billion a year for food, medicine and other
critical humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We will insist that Iraq’s oil be used for food, not tanks.
Third, we would welcome the return of UNSCOM and the International Atomic
Energy Agency back into Iraq to pursue their mandate from the United Nations,
provided that Iraq first takes concrete, affirmative and demonstrable actions
to show that it will fully cooperate with the inspectors. But if UNSCOM is not
allowed to resume its work on a regular basis, we will remain vigilant and
prepared to use force if we see that Iraq is rebuilding its weapons programs.
Now, over the long term, the best way to end the threat that Saddam poses to
his own people in the region is for Iraq to have a different government. We
will intensify our engagement with the Iraqi opposition groups, prudently and
effectively. We will work with Radio Free Iraq to help news and information
flow freely to the country. And we will stand ready to help a new leadership in
Baghdad that abides by its international commitments and respects the rights of
its own people.
We hope it will return Iraq to its rightful place in the community of nations.
Let me say in closing again how terribly proud I am of our men and women in
uniform. Once again, they have done a difficult job with skill, dedication and
determination. I also want to say that I am very proud of our national security
I want to thank Secretary Cohen and General Shelton. I want to thank Secretary
Albright and Sandy Berger. The vice president and I have relied on them very
heavily. They have performed with extraordinary ability and restraint, as well
I am very, very grateful for the way this operation was planned and executed.
But again, foremost, I want to give my thanks to our men and women in uniform.
And we are waiting for the last planes to come home and praying that we’ll be
able to tell you tomorrow that every last one of them has returned home safely.
Thank you very much.
Thejordan6 2012-08-17 22:46:21
Democrats Speak Out on Iraq
Because I’m lazy, I generally try to avoid putting overly topical things on my
site. But I’m so sick of the “Bush lied” c*** that I’ve finally decided to give
the other side a hearing.
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
Bill 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
Bill 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
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the
threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies.
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the
United States and our allies.
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
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 mandates of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of
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
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
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
Thejordan6 2012-08-17 22:46:23
The Democrats’ WMD fraud
June 3, 2003
“The community of nations may see more and more of 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,” the president of the United States warned. “If we
fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps
will be emboldened tomorrow.”
The secretary of state loyally followed this hard line, defending the U.N.
sanctions on Saddam Hussein: “There has never been an embargo against food and
medicine. It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on
that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Leveraging U.N. resolutions to support military action, the secretary of
defense said: “The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess
chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation
to carry out the U.N. declaration.”
The officials argued that U.N. inspections weren’t enough. “It is ineffectual;
it is not able to do its job by its own judgment,” the president’s national
security adviser said of the U.N. inspections regime. “It doesn’t provide much
deterrence against WMD activity.”
The president’s congressional loyalists stood behind him. “Iraq is not the only
nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction,” said a prominent
senator, sounding a familiar theme, “but it is the only nation with a leader
who has used them against his own people.”
“For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that
almost goes without description,” said another hawk, taking aim at the split in
the international community. “France, on the other hand, has long established
economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a
Who were the political leaders who, according to critics of the Iraq war,
perpetrated this fraud on the American people by making overblown warnings
about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction? Respectively, President Bill
Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William
Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. John
They were all speaking in the late 1990s when Clinton bombed Iraq to “degrade”
an Iraqi WMD capacity that we are supposed to believe disappeared in the
inspection-free years that ensued, only to be resurrected as a false
justification for war by the Bush administration.
The failure so far to find WMD in Iraq is a major embarrassment for President
Bush, and congressional hearings into the intelligence prior to the Iraq War
are welcome. But the post-Iraq debate shouldn’t proceed on false pretenses:
Everyone this side of famed Iraqi prevaricator Baghdad Bob believed that Iraq
had WMD. In the run-up to the war, the United Nations, the “axis of weasel”
(France and Germany) and high-profile Democrats all agreed about WMD.
The specific figures in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s U.N. presentation
about Iraq’s unaccounted-for WMD came from U.N. inspectors. France and Germany
didn’t argue that Saddam had no WMD, but inspections could rid him of them.
Clinton and Al Gore dissented from aspects of Bush’s policy, but agreed about
WMD. “We know,” Gore said, “he has stored secret supplies of biological and
The question was what to do about a dictator with ties to terrorism who for 12
years had defied the procedures set out by the world to confirm that he no
longer had dangerous weapons. For the Bush administration, Sept. 11 meant
erring on the side of safety, and so continuing to accept Saddam’s denials and
defiance wasn’t an option.
As someone once warned: “This is not a time free from peril, especially as a
result of the reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists,
drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our
future from these predators of the 21st century.” Even if the rhetoric was
shrill, Bill Clinton had a point.
Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a TownHall.com member group.
2003 King Features Syndicate
Thejordan6 2012-08-17 22:46:29
Clinton demands total access for U.N. arms inspectors
Source: Annan expected to make Baghdad trip
February 17, 1998
Web posted at: 2:38 p.m. EST (1938 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — U.S. President Clinton said Tuesday that Washington still
favors a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis, but stressed that any solution
must include free and unfettered access for U.N. weapons inspectors.
“A diplomatic solution must include, or meet, a clear, immutable, reasonable,
simple standard: Iraq must agree — and soon — to free, full, unfettered
access to these (inspection) sites anywhere in the country,” Clinton said.
Clinton spoke at the Pentagon, after military leaders briefed him on
preparations for possible strikes. Accompanying him were Vice President Al
Gore, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman
Gen. Hugh Shelton.
President Clinton gives an update on Iraq
The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he
warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against
his own people — and would likely use the weapons again unless he were
prevented from doing so.
Hussein, said the president, “threatens the security of all the rest of us.”
Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United
Nations about the country’s weaponry.
“It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this
(weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his
capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them
and the feedstock necessary to produce them,” Clinton said.
The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having
a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:
5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs
Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United
States and the “freedom-loving world.”
‘He … will be to blame for the consequences’
He accused Iraq of trying to thwart U.N. inspections by reinterpreting the
meaning of Gulf War resolutions as to which sites can be inspected, for how
long and by which inspectors.
Clinton, who has ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military
strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N.
demands on weapons inspections: “He, and he alone, will be to blame for the
The president said the U.S. had the military means to achieve the objective and
secure the “vital strategic interests” of the United States in the Gulf region.
“A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction
capacity. But it can, and will, leave him (Hussein) significantly worse off
than he is now, in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these
weapons or to attack his neighbors,” Clinton said.
“Force can never be the first answer,” he emphasized, “but sometimes it’s the
Thejordan6 2012-08-17 22:46:31
New York Post, October 10, 2002
The president was firm, resolute and uncompromising in explaining to the nation
why military action against Saddam Hussein had proved necessary: “This
situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian
Gulf and the safety of people everywhere,” he said. “This is a question of
action. Iraq has abused its final chance.”
Indeed, he warned, “Overwhelming force remains an option.” Delaying such action
“for even a matter of days would [give] Saddam more time to disperse his forces
and protect his weapons.”
Even with nations such as Russia, China and France disagreeing with the use of
armed force, he said, “we remain ready to act.”
No, the president delivering those assurances wasn’t George W. Bush this week,
nor his father a decade ago.
It was Bill Clinton who issued those threats in December 1998 – and later acted
on them (albeit briefly and tentatively).
Which explains why congressional Democrats weren’t singing the chorus of angry
anti-war slogans and charges of “Pearl Harbor in reverse” that now emanate from
the port side of Capitol Hill.
* “Saddam Hussein’s objective is to maintain a program of weapons of mass
destruction,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) back then. “It is important to
hold him accountable by force. No one will question that it is Mr. Hussein who
has precipitated this confrontation and no one else.”
Nearly four years later, though, Kerry has started asking questions. He warns
ominously that the president has failed to answer “the question to Mom and Pop
in America as to why their young child may come home in a body bag.”
In 1998, Kerry insisted “I would go beyond mere containment.” But now that
George W. Bush is commander-in-chief, Kerry (who’d dearly love to move into the
White House himself) wants to know why America isn’t pursuing a policy of
* Kerry’s fellow Bay Stater, Sen. Ted Kennedy, may be ranting now about
“unilateralism run amok” under Bush. But when Clinton was giving the orders, he
declared that “Saddam’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. arms inspectors must be
met with a firm response. I strongly support the president’s actions.”
* The two Democratic congressional leaders, Sen. Tom Daschle and Rep. D***
Gephardt, issued a joint statement hailing Clinton’s “correct decision to
undertake military action against Iraq at this time.”
Indeed, they added, “Any delay would have given Saddam Hussein time to
recontitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.”
* Today, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin is one of the
biggest critics of a U.S. strike against Iraq.
Back then, however, he initiated a letter signed by 26 colleagues urging
Clinton “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.”
All those Democrats were on record backing force at a time when weapons
inspections had just been halted. Does anyone really believe that the situation
has improved since then?
Were Republicans opposing the Democratic president in 1998? No: A House
resolution supporting the attack and endorsing regime change in Iraq passed by
There was some GOP skepticism – but only over the air strikes’ politically
suspicious timing: Clinton launched the attack one day before the vote on his
impeachment. And he had, until then, consistently backed down when faced with
the need for military force against Saddam.
Indeed, the White House flip-flopped on its Iraq policy from Day One of
Clinton’s administration. Clinton repeatedly threatened to go to war over
weapons inspections. Later, he secretly undermined those same inspectors’
ability to do their job .
At one point, Clinton even cancelled a military strike as B-52s were airborne
and cruise missiles were about to be launched.
End result: Saddam Hussein was calling the shots by efffortlessly calling Bill
Even the impeachment-eve military strike effectively did little to cripple
Saddam’s weapons program or force his compliance with U.N. resolutions.
Maybe that’s the real difference at work now: President Bush has an Iraq policy
with a fixed objective – disarmament and regime change. And he’s intent on
actually achieving that goal.
What many Democrats can’t stand is that, when it comes to Iraq, George W. Bush
is no Bill Clinton. He won’t just sit back and pray that Saddam Hussein
Thejordan6 2012-08-17 22:46:36
Arguments for Operation Iraqi Freedom
The Democrat Left accuses George Bush of “misleading” the American people about
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Let’s revisit what they said a few years
ago. The following Democrats agree with George Bush on the need for military
action against the Butcher of Baghdad (royalty-free leaflet: Bush as sheriff,
Saddam as bad guy).
President Bill Clinton ordered military action against Iraq
Albert Gore on Saddam Hussein. “He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison
gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors.”
Senator Tom Daschle on Saddam Hussein
Senator John Kerry on Saddam Hussein
The DNC’s willful misrepresentation of President Bush’s State of the Union
Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton Says By Linda D. Kozaryn American
Forces Press Service
[As a publication of the United States Government, this is believed to be in
the public domain]
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.
….”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
….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.”
Albert Gore, 16 December 1998
“If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic
missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to
kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these
weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons
of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about
killing lots and lots of people.”
Thomas Daschle, 1998
a 1998 use-of-force resolution would “send as clear a message as possible that
we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq
to comply with international law.” “We have exhausted virtually our diplomatic
effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with
international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to
Senator John Kerry, 23 February 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he
has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to
continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is
a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global
basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”
22 July 2003 Democratic National Committee’s willful misrepresntation of
President Bush’s State of the Union speech.
“The DNC is running TV ads that attack President Bush for his false claim
in the State of the Union speech that ‘Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'”
“What President Bush actually said was, ‘The British government has learned
[emphasis added] that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa.’ But for some strange reason, the DNC left out that whole
British government part. Gee, that changes the entire nature of the
president s statement. You don t think the DNC left it out on purpose, do
The Democratic National Committee complains about the Republicans’ attempt to
keep this ad off the air but they don’t show the ad’s text on their own Web
site, because the public would realize that they are lying. Per
Jul 21, 2003
Republicans Try to Keep the Truth Off the Air
Washington, D.C. — Over the weekend the Republican National Committee (RNC)
tried to keep an ad produced by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) off the
air in Madison, Wisconsin.
A letter to the television stations from RNC Counsel Caroline C. Hunter states,
“The Democratic National Committee certainly has a legitimate First Amendment
right to participate in political debate, but it has no right to willfully
spread false information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the American
DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responded saying, “We agree accuracy is important
when speaking to millions of Americans on an issue as important as going to
war. We only wonder why the Republican National Committee didn’t send the same
letter to President Bush when he made misleading statements in the State of the
Union address. The ad is true, the President misled the public during the State
of the Union.”
The DNC Webmasters are apparently too ashamed to include the ad in question,
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” in which the DNC truncates the
President’s words to suit its own purposes: to deceive the American people.
Thejordan6 2012-08-19 07:56:26
October 1, 2003
Most Americans Willing to Accept Some Intelligence Failures
Gregory J. Rummo
Joe Belz, the publisher of WORLD Magazine makes this observation in the Sept.
27 issue: Of all the deceptions the Bush administration is guilty of in its
conduct of the war in Iraq, the most unforgivable is this: They misled us by
making it seem too easy, too early.
And I am now convinced, one of the ways they made it seem too easy was in their
prediction that they would find hidden caches of weapons of mass destruction.
That was the main reason we went into Iraq.
Halting a madman s genocidal tendencies was a collateral benefit of the war
to the Iraqis which in and of itself would not have been sufficient reason to
overthrow Hussein s brutal regime.
Yet, as our troops uncover more mass graves and we learn of the horrors that
took place, a majority of Americans are willing to cut the president slack over
the administration s failure to find WMDs, even if there were intelligence
failures a charge vigorously denied last weekend by national security adviser
Colin Powell was also out defending the US s intelligence. He explained from
1998 until earlier this year, U.N. inspectors could not conduct accurate
inspections. Our intelligence community had to do the best they could. And I
think they did a pretty good job, he said. He further explained that even
though there was a multi-year gap in coverage it defied logic to assume
Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction in light of what we know about
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction sent to Syria is a very real possibility. On
September 17, Bill Gertz reported in the Washington Times that the US is
currently investigating intelligence reports that Iraq sent weapons to Syria to
hide them from U.N. inspectors and coalition troops in Iraq.
John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control, recently testified
before Congress. During his testimony he said, We have seen these reports,
reviewed them carefully, and see them as cause for concern. Thus far, we have
been unable to confirm that such transfers occurred. The US s cause for
concern is due to Syria s expanding [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities and continued state sponsorship of terrorism, Bolton said.
Wherever they went, and wherever they still are, we know Hussein possessed them
at one time. And from what we know about his reign of terror, it is ridiculous
to assume he disposed of them voluntarily and asinine to assert the Bush
administration knowingly misled the American people.
The very people who are criticizing President Bush the loudest over the US s
involvement in Iraq Sen. Ted Kennedy for example had no problem when former
president Bill Clinton launched several hundred cruise missiles against Iraq
during his administration.
At that time, Clinton explained to the American public: 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
What has changed from then to now? In the minds of the president s critics,
only one thing there s a Republican in the White House.
But for the rest of us who only wish to live, work and raise our families in
peace and security, we remember all too well the horrors of 9-11.
These same critics blamed intelligence failures for the events of that day too.
If indeed the failure to find Hussein s weapons of mass destruction turns out
to be bad intelligence, to a lot of people, it simply won t matter.
In an era when our enemies are despotic lunatics who speak only lies, and evil
hate-filled terrorists who think nothing of dragging box cutters across the
throats of flight attendants, most Americans are willing to accept that even if
the administration made honest mistakes, a few less monsters in the world is
ultimately a good thing.
Thejordan6 2012-08-19 07:56:34
A Plot to Deceive?
June 8, 2003
There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied
when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday The
Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense Intelligence Agency analysts
claimed last September merely that Iraq “probably” possessed “chemical agent in
chemical munitions” and “probably” possessed “bulk chemical stockpiles,
primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard
agent and VX,” a deadly nerve agent.
This kind of “discrepancy” qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not
because the Bush administration may have — repeat, may have — exaggerated the
extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the critics’
real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently put it, “the
failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may mean that there
never were any in the first place.”
The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the
U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how
many he was building. But that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and
the ability to produce more? That has never been in doubt.
Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons
inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX.
Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for
years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that
he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione,
put it bluntly in a report last year: “Iraq has chemical and biological
weapons.” The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi
weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.
Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security
Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq’s stocks of anthrax, Blix reported
“no convincing evidence” that they were ever destroyed. But there was “strong
evidence” that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted “and that at
least some of this was retained.” Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650
kilograms of “bacterial growth media,” enough “to produce . . . 5,000 litres of
concentrated anthrax.” Cirincione concluded that “it is likely that Iraq
retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin.”
On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information
that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced
VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent
was never “weaponized.” But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered
Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared.
The team also uncovered “indications that the agent” had been “weaponized.”
According to Cirincione’s August 2002 report, “it is widely believed that
significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in
secret depots” and that there were also “thousands of possible chemical
munitions still unaccounted for.” Blix reported there were 6,500 “chemical
bombs” that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix’s
team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As
Blix reported to the Security Council, “in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.”
Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted for.
Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make more sense
to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we’ll find them or
we’ll find out what happened to them?
The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be.
Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they’re not
alone. They’re part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes
U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and
outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.
Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the
Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that “we believe that
[Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents
that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by
aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems.”
Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said,
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in
1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks
Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that
Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear
weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to
Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February
that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that “we have
to find and destroy them.”
Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he
learned as vice president, that Hussein had “stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Finally, there’s former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech,
Clinton described Iraq’s “offensive biological warfare capability, notably
5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.” Clinton accurately
reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors “that Iraq still has stockpiles of
chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the
capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more
weapons.” That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by
George W. Bush.
Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address
the “kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel
the world among us unnoticed.” I think Bush said that, too.
So if you like a good conspiracy, this one’s a doozy. And the best thing about
it is that if all these people are lying, there’s only one person who ever told
the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can’t find him either.
Thejordan6 2012-08-19 07:56:37
We Don’t Care
June 4, 2003
Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War
SEETHING WITH RAGE and frustration at the success of the war in Iraq, liberals
have started in with their female taunting about weapons of mass destruction.
The way they carry on, you would think they had caught the Bush administration
in some shocking mendacity. (You know how the left hates a liar.)
For the sake of their tiresome argument, let’s stipulate that we will find no
weapons of mass destruction or, to be accurate, no more weapons of mass
destruction. Perhaps Hussein was using the three trucks capable of assembling
poison gases to sell ice cream under some heretofore undisclosed U.N. “Oil For
Should we apologize and return the country to Saddam Hussein and his winsome
sons? Should we have him on “Designer’s Challenge” to put his palaces back in
all their ’80s Vegas splendor? Or maybe Uday and Qusay could spruce up each
other’s rape rooms on a very special episode of “Trading Spaces”? What is
No one cares.
In fact, the question was never whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction. We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used weapons of
mass destruction against the Kurds, against the Iranians and against his own
The United Nations weapons inspectors repeatedly found Saddam’s weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, right up until Saddam threw them
out in 1998. Justifying his impeachment-day bombing, Clinton cited the Iraqi
regime’s “nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.” (Indeed, this
constitutes the only evidence that Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass
destruction: Bill Clinton said he did.)
Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam had
secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone. This would
finally explain the devilish question of why Saddam thwarted inspectors every
inch of the way for 12 years, issued phony reports to the U.N., and wouldn’t
allow flyovers or unannounced inspections: It was because he had nothing to
But that wasn’t liberals’ position.
Liberals also have to pretend that the only justification for war given by the
Bush administration was that Iraq was knee-deep in nukes, anthrax, biological
weapons and chemical weapons so much so, that even Hans Blix couldn’t help
but notice them.
But that wasn’t the Bush administration’s position.
Rather, it was that there were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein and
none to keep him. When President Bush gave the Hussein regime 48 hours’ notice
to quit Iraq, he said: “(A)ll the decades of deceit and cruelty have now
reached an end.” He said there would be “no more wars of aggression against
your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no
more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of
your liberation is near.”
Liberals kept saying that’s too many reasons. The New York Times’ leading
hysteric, Frank Rich, complained: “We know Saddam Hussein is a thug and we want
him gone. But the administration has never stuck to a single story in arguing
the case for urgent pre-emptive action now.” Since liberals never print
retractions, they can say anything. What they said in the past is never
Contrary to their current self-advertisements, it was liberals who were citing
Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and with gusto in order to argue
against war with Iraq. They said America would suffer retaliatory strikes,
there would be mass casualties, Israel would be nuked, our troops would be hit
with Saddam’s chemical weapons, it would be a Vietnam quagmire.
They said “all” we needed to do was disarm him. This would have required a
military occupation of Iraq and a systematic inspection of the 1,000 or so
known Iraqi weapons sites without interference from the Hussein regime. In
other words, pretty much what we’re doing right now.
Remember? That’s why liberals were so smitten with the idea of relying on U.N.
weapons inspectors. As their title indicates, “weapons inspectors” inspect
weapons. They don’t stop torture, abolish rape rooms, feed the people, topple
Saddam’s statues or impose democracy.
In January this year, The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof cited the sort of
dismal CIA report that always turns up in the hands of New York Times
reporters, warning that Saddam might order attacks with weapons of mass
destruction as “his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of
victims with him.” He said he opposed invading Iraq as a pure matter of the
“costs and benefits” of an invasion, concluding we should not invade because
there was “clearly a significant risk” that it would make America less safe.
In his native tongue, weaselese, Kristof claimed he would be gung-ho for war if
only he were convinced we could “oust Saddam with minimal casualties and
quickly establish a democratic Iraq.” We’ve done that, and now he’s blaming the
Bush administration for his own idiotic predictions of disaster. Somehow,
that’s Bush’s fault, too. Kristof says Bush manipulated evidence of weapons of
mass destruction an act of duplicity he calls “just as alarming” as a
dictator who has weapons of mass destruction.
If Americans were lied to, they were lied to by liberals who warned we would be
annihilated if we attacked Iraq. The left’s leading intellectual light, Janeane
Garofalo, was featured in an anti-war commercial before the war, saying: “If we
invade Iraq, there’s a United Nations estimate that says, ‘There will be up to
a half a million people killed or wounded.'” Now they’re testy because they
fear Saddam may never have had even a sporting chance to unleash dastardly
weapons against Americans.
Thejordan6 2012-08-19 07:56:45
Hillary Gets Tough
The junior senator from New York may be surprising some people with what she
has to say about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction.
by Fred Barnes
09/24/2003 2:30:00 PM
Fred Barnes, executive editor
PRESIDENT BUSH has a surprising defender of his contention that Saddam Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction–Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
“The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent” in
concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop
a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam’s expulsion of
weapons inspectors and “the behavior” of his regime “pointed to a continuing
effort” to produce WMD, she added.
The senator said she did her own “due diligence” by attending classified
briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by
consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she
trusts. “To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence”
that Saddam had WMD.
Clinton isn’t normally a defender of the Bush administration. And on other
issues, especially Bush’s handling of postwar Iraq, she was highly critical.
But she agreed, with qualifications, that preemptive military action may be
necessary in certain cases, as Bush has argued was the case with Iraq.
Clinton’s comments came during an appearance before dozens of reporters at a
Wednesday breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. She had no
trouble brushing aside questions about her own plans, if any, of running for
president in 2004 or later, and she declined to assess other Democratic
candidates or discuss any role she had in creating the candidacy of General
Wesley Clark. Clinton simply reiterated that she is not running in 2004 but
that her “overriding goal . . . is to elect a Democratic president.”
But reporters did not give up easily. She was asked if she might not be
interested in returning to the White House “some day.” “That’s not what I’m
thinking about,” she said. But couldn’t she foresee running for president at
some point? “No,” Clinton answered.
On preemption–attacking an enemy before he attacks you–Clinton said the
president shouldn’t have announced it as a doctrine. “It’s a strategy, it’s a
choice, it’s not a doctrine,” she insisted. But she said it would be justified
in certain circumstances, citing a possible terrorist attack or proliferation
If WMD are not found in Iraq, she said this would suggest a huge intelligence
problem. And a probe would be needed to find what sources were being relied on
and why the United States was “so misled, so wrong.”
Clinton passed up the opportunity to defend the charges of Democratic Sen.
Edward Kennedy that the war in Iraq was a “fraud” cooked up in Texas by the
Bush administration and that the president has been bribing foreign leaders to
help out in Iraq. Instead she defended Kennedy himself, not his accusations. “I
respect Senator Kennedy as much as any one of my colleagues. I respect his
opinion . . . He has every right to express his opinion.”
And she declined to discuss any similarities between Republican dislike of
President Clinton and Democratic “hatred” of Bush. “I don’t think that’s a
useful exercise,” she said.
Unruly human 2012-08-24 00:16:54
The Democratic Party is in the Fast Lane To Oblivion. Standing around
playing the role of “Prophet of Doom” isn’t going to fly. They’ll all
end up like Art Bulla if they continue that game.
The purely partison and totally transparent flip-flopping certainly
can’t be fooling anyone.
It’s too bad, really. But they did it to themselves.
Call me cynical, but I wasn’t impressed with them all standing on the
Capitol steps singing “God Bless America”. Neither party is concerned
with anything other than sitting in the driver’s seat.
It’d sure be nice if an of them would actually do something other than
just trying to obstruct the other guys.
Dangerous1 dot com
Think global, act loco
John manning 2012-08-24 09:43:54
I read every one of the articles that you posted here Randy. NOT ONE of
them addressed the back-story evidence presented in the NEWSWEEK article
I provided. I doubt that you even read it.
Kevin zoellner 2012-08-26 00:29:01
These articles that Randy posted soundly refute *every* comunist liberal
left wing nut editorial rant that you have posted here in the last few
months, I truly doubt that you read them.
GySgt USMC (retired)
United States Marine Corps… When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.
John manning 2012-08-26 00:29:47
ACTUALLY I DID. I still think that you BOTH haven’t read how the Bushies
LIED, clearly described in the NEWSWEEK report that goes *behind* the
When one reads it, it’s OBVIOUS how they LIED to justify killing people
for an ideological, political and financial agenda.
Kevin zoellner 2012-08-27 07:34:18
What is obvious is how the left wing liberal nutcases are lieing in
order to discredit Bush.
GySgt USMC (retired)
United States Marine Corps… When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.
John manning 2012-08-27 07:37:15
I’m not responsible for voluntary your blindness. You are.