Whatever happened to Iraq's WMD???

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
Shouldn't all you liberals be asking the Clinton Administration that question?

SLML....Selective Liberal Memory Loss

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

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President 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 program."
--President 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 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators 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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

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

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

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is their any confusion why I can't stand liberals!
 
Why would we ask Clinton? GW went to war over them, not clinton. Justify the war. If it was the other way around, you would be raking clinton over the coals and you know it.
 
Joeychgo said:
Why would we ask Clinton? GW went to war over them, not clinton. Justify the war. If it was the other way around, you would be raking clinton over the coals and you know it.

Actually, Clinton did launch military strikes against Iraq. And they were responsible for the policy of regime change in Iraq.

Clinton had the luxury of operating in a PRE-9/11 world, Bush didn't.

But prior to the war in Iraq, all of the Clinton staff, associated, and Bill himself, supported the decision to overthrow Saddam.
 
Calabrio said:
But prior to the war in Iraq, all of the Clinton staff, associated, and Bill himself, supported the decision to overthrow Saddam.
But that was when it was politically beneficial.
 
Joeychgo said:
Why would we ask Clinton? GW went to war over them, not clinton. Justify the war. If it was the other way around, you would be raking clinton over the coals and you know it.

Clinton never would have had the cojones to go to war and actually take casualties. He was a coward who allowed bin Laden to escape on a legal whim, and it cost this country dearly. Now his media and his "historians" (Carville, Begala, Sandy Burglar, et al) are trying to hide what happened and revise the past.
 
fossten said:
Now his media and his "historians" (Carville, Begala, Sandy Burglar, et al) are trying to hide what happened and revise the past.

Remember, Burglar wasn't stealing secret national archives damaging to former President Clinton, he was sloppy.
 
Clinton never would have had the cojones to go to war and actually take casualties. He was a coward who allowed bin Laden to escape on a legal whim, and it cost this country dearly. Now his media and his "historians" (Carville, Begala, Sandy Burglar, et al) are trying to hide what happened and revise the past.

Bin Laden was indirectly involved with 9/11. He never took responsibility for the attack......merely he praised it. There is a difference. Do you honestly believe that if Bin Laden had been killed that 9/11 would not have happened?
 
Bin Laden was indirectly involved with 9/11. He never took responsibility for the attack......merely he praised it. There is a difference. Do you honestly believe that if Bin Laden had been killed that 9/11 would not have happened?

You want to play the "what if" game?

Fine, let's play.

If:

Clinton had not erected the "Gorelick wall";
Clinton had taken bin Laden on the silver platter he was sitting on instead of playing hide the cigar with fat interns;
Clinton had not done nothing after the 1993 bombing of the WTC;
Clinton had treated terrorism as a military issue instead of law enforcement;
Clinton had not gutted our intel and military;
Clinton had actually LISTENED to Richard Clarke;
Clinton had pursued bin Laden instead of Bill Gates;
Clinton had pursued action like he promised on the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia;
Clinton had taken action like he promised after the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996;
Clinton had taken action like he promised after the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa which killed 224 and injured 5,000;
Clinton had taken action like he promised after the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 US sailors;
Clinton had not refused to open the GAO funds for Bush's transition team, thus hamstringing the new administration and setting them back 3 months, only allowing them approx. 6 months to deal with the situation Bill's 8 years of inaction left them with;

Then maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

"...I tried, which is more than I can say for some...I tried, and I failed..."

-- Bill Clinton
 
Clinton had taken bin Laden on the silver platter he was sitting on instead of playing hide the cigar with fat interns;

:bowrofl:

I'm not going to say anything but this, do you notice how the administration in house at the time takes the rap of the previous administrations (not necessarily this one). People tend not to think of how the situation came about but more so of what we are doing to deal with it. I have no idea what I just said, just want to post in the political forum once! ;)
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top