WARNING: TRUTH ALERT!!!
Bush Lied, People Died Dems reading this must have telephone at the ready to dial 911 in case serious health problems emerge from reading what follows.
Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Cohen stated in a televised
Pentagon press briefing that the “UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically
enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth....We face a clear and present danger today.... [The] terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in New York had in mind the destruction and deaths of 250,000 people that they were determined to kill.”
Remarks by
Defense Secretary Cohen during a Defense Department briefing, November 25, 1997,
available at
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov1997/t11251997_t1125ptr.html.
Note: The UN Inspecteurs de la UN were kicked out less than 1-year later.
“Prepare the Country for War”
The New York Times reported that at the November 14 meeting the “White House
decided to prepare the country for war.” According to the Times, “[t]he decision was
made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs
to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare.”
“How Tough Questions and Shrewd Mediating Brought Iraqi Showdown to an End,”
New York Times,
November 23, 1997.
During this time,
the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically
directed Cohen “to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat.”
“Diplomacy and Doubts on the Road to War,”
Washington Post, March 1, 1998.
On Sunday, November 16,
Cohen made a widely-reported appearance on ABC’s This
Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that
amount of anthrax “would destroy at least half the population” of Washington, D.C.
Cohen explained how fast a person could die once exposed to anthrax. “One of the
things we found with anthrax is that
one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax would produce death within five days.”
He noted that Iraq “has had enormous amounts” of anthrax. Cohen also spoke about the extreme lethality of VX nerve agent: “One drop [of VX] from this particular thimble as such—
one single drop will kill you within a few minutes.” Finally,
he reminded the world that Saddam may have enough VX to kill “millions, millions, if it were properly dispersed and through aerosol mechanisms.”
ABC News “This Week,” November 16, 1997.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf
CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
January 28, 2004 Wednesday
COMMITTEE: SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
David Kay:...It's a lot easier after the fact and after you know the truth to be selective that you were right. I've gone through this a lot in my career.
All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD.
And I remind you, it was Secretary Cohen (Clinton Administration) who stood, I think, in this very committee room with five pounds of flour and talked about anthrax.
And I refer you again -- if you go back to Secretary Cohen's testimony before this committee, Secretary Cohen, in the Clinton administration, was not referring to anthrax that might be produced in some reconstituted program. He was referring to actual weapons.
Now on to the Dems selective memory:
Hate to pop your partisan nonsense bubble, but no one truned on THEM. Many fought for them and against the harm Bush was doing to them.
Harm Bush was doing? Seems Obama said it was a success.
To think you actually believe the Left didn't turn on Bush is hilarious... absolutely one of the biggest larfs on this site. Check their votes for the war, then check their projectile vomit rhetoric, supported by the equally vile Journolists.
You have to care about wasting their lives needlessly in order to fight for them. If those lives mean little to a parson, that person will accept any reason to spend those those lives. Some of us value their lives and don't want them spend recklessly or without just cause or a valid reason.
More revealing poison: Their lives were not wasted. They did not die in vain. Their mission was not reckless. What was reckless was the Dems and their leadership scoring huge headlines for folks like al Jazeera. None worse than a Democrat declaring "the war is lost" while our troops are on the battle field. Calling them Nazi's... air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians... all from the lips of Dem's treasonous leaders.
With your logic, pre-911 we should have left bin Laden alone. Taking him out (Clinton had the opportunity and balked) would have saved 3000 lives and all the destruction in NYC, DC and the plane that went down in PA. But we need more evidence to take care of business... even though Saddam lost Gulf War 1 and agreed to disarm.
Yes, you have to care... and Bush did... but the bigger picture is we had a guy that lost Gulf War 1, was supposed to disarm and hadn't after 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions. Post 911... Bush gave Saddam a chance. Now we have a democracy established, where Dems claimed it couldn't happen. Just go back and listen to the crap out of Biden's mouth alone. Wrong and disgusting... the entire lot of you SAPs.
Too many on your side of the isle simply played stupid and tried to trun real concerns into something unpatriotic. Such people are vile and dishonest. There is no place in reasoned discourse for such stupidity and deception. So, no, you can't start out the way you do in this thread and be taken seriously.
ROTFLMFAO... played stupid? You folks and your leadership acted in a treasonous manner and now want to be forgiven. Your side voted on this TWICE... and asked for the second vote... so... Screw you. Your record is clear... just as it was in Vietnam... but this time your aiding and abetting the enemy didn't work.
There was ONE democrat who went against the perverted mania of your party, and look what happened to Lieberman? Look at what Dems tried to do to him. Why? Because he was the lone wolf supporting the mission fully.
It's not as if Americans couldn't vote on it either. They did in 2004, and Bush's stay the course won... vs. Dr. Flip Flop.
Again, NO PROOF! Just alot of speculation, but nothing concrete. And other than Iraqies and Iran, who else did Saddam use his chemical weapons against? NOBODY! Yeah, he launched a few SCUD missiles at Isreal, but none hit their target. Plus, Isreal can pretty much hold their own. In any case, we still had their back.
A lot of speculation... ROTFLOL.
Who else did he use WMD against... ROTFLOL... like we need further proof he would use them... or perhaps hand them off to terrorists. He only tried to assassinate a former president; I guess that was a love note to America?
Have you forgotten Saddam invaded a neighbor, lost Gulf War 1 and was supposed to disarm? Not in 12-years, not play hide-and-seek... as noted by Hans Blix. Also noted by Blix was his belief the programs would be reconstituted. Not anymore they're not.
BTW, my critical thinking ability is just fine. I just don't believe our President should lie to the American people - no...scare the country using misleading information - to justify going to war.
Your critical thinking is awash in poison.
There is nothing critical about it. You cannot face facts:
1. Dems voted for the war, asking for a second vote of support and getting it. These votes were for political expediency.
2. Foreign governments agreed he had WMD.
3. Blix believed he had WMD.
4. Congress for years warned about Saddam, with POTUS Clinton and VP Gore claiming he was a threat and threatening action (war).
5. The Dems turned on the troops and the mission for political expediency.
6. Democracy has taken hold in Iraq, a nuke blackmarket stopped, and terrorist influence in the country reduced.
7. Dems now seek to rewrite their treasonous past.
CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
KAY: Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
Senator Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year,
referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.
The German certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.
We're also in a period in which we've had intelligence surprises in the proliferation area that go the other way. The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years on, that we underestimated. And, in fact, we didn't discover it. It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country who pointed the international community at the location.
The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.
There's a long record here of being wrong. There's a good reason for it. There are probably multiple reasons. Certainly proliferation is a hard thing to track, particularly in countries that deny easy and free access and don't have free and open societies.
But it's over now...cost the country over 4,400 lives and billions of dollars and for what? To bring democracy to a country that didn't ask us to interven in their affairs?
Didn't ask us to intervene? Unbelievable... LOL... yeah, I guess not... 100% of the folks voted for Saddam in his last "election". We intervened during Gulf War 1, and from there the job of disarmament was not finished after 12-years and 16 UN resolutions. You see, there is a history and reason we were there.
Do you recall George Tenet claiming the WMD case was a "Slam Dunk"? Of course not... Bush should ignore the reams of evidence that Saddam's closed, brutal society had WMD... especially post 911, and post 911 ANTHRAX attacks on the Capitol.
Blix stated the case; weaponized VX and ANTHRAX... playing hide-and-seek. David Kay adds to Blix's case:
In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.
We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.
CORNYN: You said something during your opening statement that intrigues me, and something that I'm afraid may be overlooked in all of this back and forth; and that has to do with proliferation.
You said that there was a risk of a willing seller meeting a willing buyer of such weapons or weapon stockpiles, whether they be large, small or programs, whether it's information that Iraqi scientists might be willing to sell or work in cooperation with rogue organizations or even nations.
But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?
KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his programs being successful.
KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid, we barely avoided.
.