How were conservatives justifying the Iraq war after it was revealed that no WMD were found? (Israel, arsenal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose one of the only good things to come from the Iraq war is a huge decline in public support for intensive foreign interventions. Even the Libyan air war was pushing it for a lot of people, and a ground invasion of Syria (something seriously proposed after 9/11) is simply not in the cards anymore.
But, we tend to forget these sorts of lessons after a while and re-learn them painfully. I just hope the interval lasts a while longer.
So, let me get this straight, you're blaming Clinton for GWB's invasion of Iraq 5 years later.
Yes, the Iraq Liberation Act Clinton signed gave Bush the legitimacy to do so. DEMOCRATS voted to approve Bush's actions. Here's what DEMOCRATS had to say about it:
"We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002 Online with Jim Lehrer — Public Broadcasting Service
"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 Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today
"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 U.S. Senate — Ted Kennedy
"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 Congressional Record — Robert Byrd
"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002 Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry
"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 Congressional Record — Sen. Jay Rockefeller
"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 Congressional Record — Rep. Henry Waxman
"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, 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-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. Hillary Clinton
"The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.
Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. Ted Kennedy
"There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons..." — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. Bob Graham
"But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.
To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ''a defection agency,' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction" — Sen. Joseph Biden Congressional Record — Sen. Joseph Biden
"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. John Edwards
How did they learn all these things? Do they have their own intelligence agencies? Strange to blame people for believing the lies the scum Bush told, but not blame the scum Bush and his fellow torturers for telling them.
What's not strange is right-wingers desperately trying to pretend the failures of the scum Bush are not his fault. When right-wing torture supporters say they believe in personal accountability, what they really mean is they believe in blaming others for right-wing failure, incompetence, and inadequacy.
How did they learn all these things? Do they have their own intelligence agencies? Strange to blame people for believing the lies the scum Bush told
If there were any lies, they didn't come from Bush. They came from Clinton admin intel and UNSCOM. Look at the sources on the DoD briefing slides (click on each slide to enlarge): DoD News: DoD Briefing on Iraqi Denial and Deception
About 10 years ago, I didn't have much internet access to see arguments in the online political community. For those who did, how did conservatives defend GW after no WMDs were found in Iraq?
www.google.com
While you're at it, see how many dims supported that war.
You're welcome. Good to see you back from the cave you lived in 10 years ago
The invasion desire didn't come from intelligence, it came from lack of intelligence. Namely, and as the evidence has been posted in this thread, insiders said that Bush came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq. That is really the bottom-line.
Once 911 occurred, Bush tried to connect Iraq to the event. According to Richard Clarke, "On September 12th, I left the video conferencing center and there, wandering alone around the situation room, was the president. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but - see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred-"
"Absolutely, we will look-again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the president said testily and left us.
...
"I am unaware of any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed at the US since 1993, and I think FBI and CIA concur in that judgment?" CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin replied, "Yes, that is right. We have no evidence of any active Iraqi terrorist threat against the US."
lol.
I'm sorry...lol is all I can think when I see the flopping all over the place, blaming, then justifying.
If there were any lies, they didn't come from Bush.
Yeah, they did. I watched them do it. I watched them use sources their allies were telling them were worthless. I watched them make claims demonstrably proven false by inspectors. I watched them turn on their own when a fact-finding mission showed Bush Administration claims about Iraq's procurement of uranium were false. And on, and on. When the weapons story fizzled, they made up new reasons to pretend the invasion was justified anyway. Why didn't they just say it was all a big oops, point the finger at the previous administration's faulty intelligence, withdraw, then run on how awesome they were for saving all those soldiers lives and just imagine the debacle had the Democrats been in charge.
No, there's nothing about the whole sorry, sordid mess that makes the Republicans look good or honest or forthright. Nothing.
Yeah, they did. I watched them do it. I watched them use sources their allies were telling them were worthless. I watched them make claims demonstrably proven false by inspectors. I watched them turn on their own when a fact-finding mission showed Bush Administration claims about Iraq's procurement of uranium were false. And on, and on. When the weapons story fizzled, they made up new reasons to pretend the invasion was justified anyway. Why didn't they just say it was all a big oops, point the finger at the previous administration's faulty intelligence, withdraw, then run on how awesome they were for saving all those soldiers lives and just imagine the debacle had the Democrats been in charge.
No, there's nothing about the whole sorry, sordid mess that makes the Republicans look good or honest or forthright. Nothing.
Same info the Dems who voted for the invasion. By the way, we could care less what Canada thinks anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
