In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
WMD
jimkane
Member Posts: 1,534 ✭✭✭✭✭
Check this out (you may have already seen it)
> >No matter what your Political View is,it's something to think
about.......
> >
> >If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES --then read this and, if you are the fair minded person that I believe you to be--, PASS IT ON TO YOUR ENTIRE E-MAIL LIST.
> >
> >"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> >develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That
> >is our bottom line."
> >President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
> >
> >"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We
> >want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
> >destruction program."
> >President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
> >
> >"Iraq is a long way from USA 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
> >
> >"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
> >U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if
> >appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
> >effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
> >mass destruction programs."
> >Letter to President Clinton, 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 invigorated his weapons
> >programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
> >continue a pace 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,
> >December
> >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
> >mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
> >and the 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
> >
> >SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY
> >WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
> >
> >Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy!!!
> >
> >
27Nov2003 Samarra, Iraq
> >No matter what your Political View is,it's something to think
about.......
> >
> >If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES --then read this and, if you are the fair minded person that I believe you to be--, PASS IT ON TO YOUR ENTIRE E-MAIL LIST.
> >
> >"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> >develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That
> >is our bottom line."
> >President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
> >
> >"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We
> >want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
> >destruction program."
> >President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
> >
> >"Iraq is a long way from USA 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
> >
> >"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
> >U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if
> >appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
> >effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
> >mass destruction programs."
> >Letter to President Clinton, 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 invigorated his weapons
> >programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
> >continue a pace 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,
> >December
> >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
> >mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
> >and the 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
> >
> >SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY
> >WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
> >
> >Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy!!!
> >
> >
27Nov2003 Samarra, Iraq
Comments
Posted: June 19, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2003 Newspaper Enterprise Assn.
I am not one of those who think it's unimportant whether we find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or at least find out what happened to them. Their existence - and the possibility of their use by Saddam - was, and still is, the only real justification for the war. Saddam was a truly evil man, and liberating the Iraqis from his grip was noble. But dashing around the world like some latter-day Don Quixote, liberating damsels (or even whole populations) in distress doesn't measure up to my notion of an American "vital interest" - the test by which we can justify putting the lives of our fighting men and women at risk.
Our failure to find any such weapons to date (save for two mobile biowarfare laboratories) has struck some of Bush's critics in the Democratic Party and the media as a splendid opportunity to make a little political hay. "Bush used allegations about weapons of mass destruction as his justification for attacking Iraq," goes the syllogism. "But no such weapons have been found. Therefore, Bush lied." There has been a spirited contest to see who could use the words "Bush" and "lied" (or "misled" "deceived" or "tricked") most often in the same paragraph. So far, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida seems to have a narrow lead.
But the trouble is that such simplistic formulations soon fall afoul of one massive fact: They will work only if Saddam never had any weapons of mass destruction. And yet, his possession of huge quantities of chemical and biological toxins, as well as his persistent efforts to acquire a nuclear capability, has been widely acknowledged. Indeed, they have been insisted upon by everyone who has seriously addressed the matter for at least the past 12 years: two entire generations of U.N. weapons inspectors, the whole Clinton administration and even the government of France.
The basic facts are not in doubt. Saddam long ago publicly admitted having tons of sarin (the toxin that killed 12 people in a Tokyo subway in 1995) and VX nerve gas, and significantly failed to explain what had happened to them in his infamous response, late last year, to the United Nations' demand. What was Bush supposed to think, if not that Hussein still had them?
Faced with this minor embarrassment, the Bush critics have displayed a certain understandable amount of confusion. Some of them have tried to minimize what Saddam is universally agreed to have possessed: OK, maybe he had a little sarin and VX, but nothing like the quantities Bush charged to justify the attack. The trouble is, there was nothing minimal about the quantities specified by the United Nations in the 1990s, and even admitted to by Saddam. We are talking about tons.
So another pack of Bush critics has played the minimization game in a slightly different way. Maybe Saddam did have the arsenal he was charged with, but was the threat to the United States "imminent"? Note that we are a long way, now, from the accusation that Bush "lied." Instead, we have had planted on us the idea that war against Iraq was justifiable only if Saddam's use of his weapons of mass destruction was "imminent." Under the grim rules of modern warfare, however, how prudent would it have been to wait until Saddam had constructed, say, a nuclear weapon and his use of it was "imminent"?
That would be sheer madness.
Saddam had the means of waging chemical and biological warfare, and was on his way to nuclear capability. He probably held off using the first two because even France warned that doing so would justify his overthrow. But where, today, are these weapons?
In theory, he could have destroyed them. But if he was willing to do that, why not do it in full view of the U.N. inspectors and accept the accolades of a grateful world? Then again, he may have succeeded in spiriting them, or some of them, out of Iraq - though the difficulties of that course make it unlikely.
More probably, he simply hid them - as he has, thus far, hidden himself. But he, and they, will be found, as America's grip on Iraq tightens, and deepens. These things take time.
"You cannot conquer America." -William Pitt, 1777