Question re. Clinton, et al, Saddam &WMDs

[yankeeinlouisiana]

I'm having a debate with my RW cousin and she just sent me a bunch of quotes stating Clinton, Gore, Albright, et al, stated Saddam had WMDs or working on WMDs, back in 1998-2002?

Some quotes:

"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 , 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


She listed several others. Does anyone know why Clinton said these things or some site where I can find info to counter these statesments?

Thanks in advance! :-)

[Bronco69]

1. The repukes said

all of that was a lie, remember? They said President Clinton was only saying those things to distract us from Monica. Those statements can't possibly be true then, can they?

[gmoney]

2. Bush based 2003 actions on 1998 Intel?

And I hear Germany is massing troops on the border of Poland...

[alcuno]

3. Here's the counter-argument.

The statements you have listed were made in February of 1998. The Clinton administration BOMBED the heck out of Iraq in December of 1998 with just the purpose to destroy facilities, etc. Scott Ritter has said all along that he believed that in 1998, Iraq was 90-95% disarmed. Apparently, they finished the job.

Also, the inspectors were IN Iraq early last year for the purpose of VERIFYING Iraq's claim that they had no WMD's. The US was not particularily helpful to them, but when the US gave the inspectors a site to check out, they found nothing. Any statements made before the inspectors went in last year are MEANINGLESS since they really were simply speculating. No one knew for certain. That's why the inspections were so valuable.

And what did we do? Berate and ridicule the inspectors for fools. The joke is on us.

[yankeeinlouisiana]

6. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

This is what I was looking for. I thought Desert Fox was the answer. Thanks guys for all the posts. Those are great lines and I'll be sure to use them in my reply.

And if you have any more info., please pass them on.

Thanks again!

:bounce:

Unfortunately, she has a few quotes from 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

Any help with these? Please. With sugar on top.

[uhhuh]

8. Typical snip quoting

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen Ted Kennedy

Has your friend hit you with this one yet?

"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 Kerry
Here's the rest:

"Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.

Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world."-Sen John Kerry.

[wuushew]

9. The complete text of that Kennedy speech is awesome

Its very clear what he articulates by reading the full text. I have included the link.


http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

Also from the same speech, the part that was ommitted.

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.



These quotes stem from the period that was before the return of the inspectors. Of course they found nothing and Kennedy of course modified his outlook on the situation.

[wuushew]

11. Senator Byrd is also taken out of context

those quotes are from his impassioned defense of the constitution speech.


Perhaps a case can be made that Iraq poses such a clear and immediate danger to the United States that preemptive military action is the only way to deal with the threat. To be sure, weapons of mass destruction are a 20th century horror that the Framers of the Constitution had no way of foreseeing. But they did foresee the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress, not the President, the power to declare war.

-snip-

(note the need to confirm via inspection whether WMD exist)

Before we rush into war, we should focus on those things that pose the most direct threat to us - those facilities and weapons that form the body of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. The United Nations is the proper forum to deal with the inspection of these facilities, and the destruction of any weapons discovered. If United Nations inspectors can enter the country, inspect those facilities and mark for destruction the ones that truly belong to a weapons program, then Iraq can be declawed without unnecessary risk or loss of life. That would be the best answer for Iraq, for the United States, and for the world. But if Iraq again chooses to interfere with such an ongoing and admittedly intrusive inspection regime, then and only then should the United States, with the support of the world, take stronger measures


http://australianpolitics.com/news/2002/10/02-10-03a.shtml

[wuushew]

4. Tell her about Operation Desert Fox (Dec. 1998)

which is after all these quotes. Of these quotes only the second even hints at an extant weapons program or weapons.

[uhhuh]

5. Yep they said those things

And the Clinton Administration bombed the hell out of suspected Iraqi weapons sites.
It seems to have worked, since there doesn't seem to be anything left of the Iraqi programs.
Ask Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice. They stated in 2001 that the Iraq threat has been eliminated. I don't have the quote handy, but I'm sure some DUer does.
Of course, the repubs at the time were accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog" for calling for airstrikes against Saddam, but they hate when you bring that up.

[wuushew]

7. Got the quote right here

We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...



http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd-original.htm

[Dr Fate]

10. Did Clinton forge, plagerize, and lie about evidence?

Would we be giving Clinton "credit" if everything in this war was going right? When we caught Saddam, did Bush say: "Dont look at me, this was all Clinton's idea..."

Ask your cousin to stick to current events, and make sure the subject stays on "But why did Bush lie, forge evidence, etc..."

[uhhuh]

12. What a little Byrdy told me.

(snip)

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?

Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it - we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.

So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.

The President is using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from Capitol Hill that such orders must flow. The people, through their elected representatives, must make that decision. It is here that debate must take place and where the full spectrum of the public's desires, concerns, and misgivings must be heard. We should not allow ourselves to be pushed into one course or another in the face of a full court publicity press from the White House. We have, rather, a duty to the nation and her sons and daughters to carefully examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long term consequences of any decision to act."-Sen Robert Byrd.

http://www.counterpunch.org/byrd1004.html

(Edit for the link.)

[wuushew]

13. These quotes are all from Bushcountry.org

Destroy her with the power of semantics.

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

True statement which is past tense, a present tense would indicate that wmd were in existence in 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

Correct Saddam Hussein has always had intentions of developing WMD, intentions do not equal actual WMDs however. For instance I desire a nuclear weapon, will Bush now invade my apartment?

[never cry wolf]

14. Feed her this one

Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

"...the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

[Cooley Hurd]

15. Snopes, my friend...

Claim: Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.

<snip>
All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of air strikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
</snip>

It goes though each quote and puts it in proper context. I send the snopes page to everyone who sends me the "Blame Clinton" email...

[creeksneakers2]

16. What Bush and Clinton Knew

Clinton should have known that an Iraqi defector said all the WMD were destroyed. Clinton should have suspected his intelligence after faulty intelligence led to the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory. But, Bush should have known these things too.

Bush should have also known:

That purported British intelligence turned out to be a master's thesis posted on the Internet.

That the story about Iraq importing aluminum tubes to build a nuclear bomb was shot down long before the SOTU.

That other intelligence on nuclear weapons came from a forged document.

That while the inspectors were in Iraq, they were given locations U.S. intelligence said were WMD sites. The inspectors found nothing. Special forces also entered Iraq before the war and found no WMD at sites analysts had identified as WMD sites using U.S. satellite photos.

That most of the suspicion of Saddam was based on his lack of cooperation with inspectors. Saddam began cooperating before the war.

ABC news, on the day of Powell's testimony, reported links between Ansar al Islam and Saddam were false.


More than anything:

Colin Powell refused to go to the U.N. with intelligence he knew was false. Bush must have known this. Somehow Powell's mind was changed and items Powell removed made it back into the U.N. speech. I can think of only one way Powell could have been persuaded to lie before the U.N., an order from the president.


There are many other examples, but the point is that Bush knew the intelligence was no good and Clinton didn't. At the very least, Bush should have called for a review of ALL intelligence before going to war.


One other point:

Some of the faulty intelligence was channeled in by neocons in the first place. Bush let these same people run everything.

[F.Gordon]

17. Berger quote; Feb 18, 1998

Both Cohen and Berger threw cold water on the idea of invading Iraq so as to remove Saddam Hussein from power. "We do not support that option," Berger said. The costs and the risks are too high.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/18/98021802_npo.html

[theorist]

18. I don't see how these relate to invading Iraq.

Just because they believed Saddam was a possible danger does not mean they were itching to invade. The argument is weak.

There's really no need to "counter" these. (There's also the context issue that the others brought up.)

[yankeeinlouisiana]

19. Thank you, Everyone, very much!

All of these are great. She'll be getting a very long email shortly.

Hopefully I can bring her over to the light side soon.

Thanks again, you guys are the best!!

:bounce:

[scheming daemons]

20. Tell them this...

"I thought that everything Clinton ever said was a lie and that Gore was an exaggerator? Which is it? I'm so confused."

:-)