What's the biggest mistake Bush made?

HotNSexyMILF

Well-Known Member
Ever think Iran might have reasons for hating the U.S. and Israel? Hm. We've sanctioned the shit out of their country (an act of war) and have been caught killing their civilians. Are these "crazy terrorists" or simply people seeking revenge for the loss of loved ones? We glorify revenge killings in movies, yet show no insight or lend any understanding to those who seek to cause us harm. Where is the "American concept" of innocent until proven guilty- or even innocent until a crime is even committed? We are demeaning whole nations on the basis of thought crimes?! It's so easy to just point and say "they're crazy, that's why they can't have nukes".

I still happen to think the M.A.D. concept holds a lot of water. They know that if they were to nuke Israel or the U.S. first we would simply wipe them off of the map. Plain and simple. However, if WE were to strike them first- they would just be sitting ducks. Who would willingly put their country and their loved ones in a 'sitting duck' situation? While there isn't direct proof that they have or are trying to attain nukes- who on earth could blame them if they did?!

Perhaps it is this absolutely arrogant and self righteous American foreign policy that precipitates such hatred for us abroad. Who are we to stomp around acting as if we are the world police, then claim it is in everyone's best interest? Who are we to ascribe ourselves the gatekeepers to certain technologies- who are we to say what human knowledge can be discovered, and whom can discover it? The arrogance we push into the face of foreign countries around the world is astounding.. it is no mystery to me that others may hate us so much to attempt us harm... but let us not judge others by things we think they might do..I'm not too keen on killing others over assumptions.. call me crazy..
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
You can look it u for yourself if you wish. Not surprised you didn't hear about it....like i posted earlier.
... you posted earlier? ... and that's suppose to mean what? ... that since you said it ... it's fact ... sorry ... but that shit don't wash ... where's your source that I asked for? Lost it did we? Hey ... I got news for you ... I already looked it up and you are wrong ... but no surprises there ...
You only see what fits your world view, as limited as it is. I only follow true raw data, not the spin which accompanies it. There's quite a difference between our methodologies.
So tell us bright boy ... where is this "true raw data" you claim to have ... why can't you provide a link to this "true raw data" so we can tell the difference between the "spin" and the "true raw data"
Oh yeah ... the difference is you support war criminals and I report the crimes and actions of them ... that's the difference ...

Why did George bush get reelected....simple, the Dem's offered a poor alternative, and the people knew it. Pretty simple really...... Bush also ran a much better campaign, like Obama did this time round.
out. :blsmoke:
That's just it the illegitimate bush was never elected by the people ... election fraud ... voter suppression ... caging ... and rigged voting machines and ballots that are counted in secret was the way the illegitimate bush stole the election ... that is fact ... the exit polls proved it ... not to mention no bushwhacked nut has yet to dispute evidence presented on this forum ... other than "oh yeah he won" because the corporation(s) with a vested interested counted our votes in secret and told us so ... :sleep: ...
out:-P


... and check it folks at home ... what did I tell ya ... no link to back up the bullshit ... typical bushwhack response ... "because I said it ... just like on fauxnews" ... :dunce:
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Here yah go....now since i have PROVEN you are NOT informed...please pick up a book and read a bit before you post nonsense.

I know it must feel good to bash with others... just make sure you don't make a fool of yourself in the process.... like Grow Rebel... :roll:

read below:

NYT Admits Saddam Preserved Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Programs

November 21, 2006 — iusbvision How many times did we hear it from the antique media that “Saddam had no WMD or programs to make them” which translated into the whole “Bush lied people died” nonsense? I have many articles in my archive (and our friends at Google have them cashed) that tell us over and over again that not only did Saddam not have WMD, but that he did not have the programs for them either. Those of us who actually read the inspection team reports knew better.
The David Kay inspection team and the Charles Duelfer inspection team found labs, equipment, personnel and documents that demonstrated Saddam was preserving some WMD programs in static for the purpose of waiting until the heat was off so he could start producing them again. These were programs that Hans Blix and his team were unable to find using the old inspection regime.
Here are some excerpts from Kay Inspection Team Report:
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.
With regard to Iraq’s nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Hussein remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons.
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists’ homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
According to the Duelfer Inspection Team Report while Saddam’s nuclear program was somewhat degraded by the loss of personnel over the years “Saddam preserved the intellectual capital of his old nuclear program” and “was only six months away from producing mustard gas” and had the “capability to produce nerve agents in significant quantities within two years.” The Iraq Survey Group Report also states that development of long-range missiles, banned under the 17 UN resolutions passed between 1991 and 2003, continued unabated.
So this brings us to the New York Times. The Times published an article on November 3, 2006 (just in time for election day but I am sure that is just a total coincidence) that was intended to slam the Bush Administration for releasing Iraqi intelligence documents on the internet that included plans for nuclear and chemical weapons that were so advanced that most any country, including Iran, could have used them.
Here are some excerpts from The Times article:
On Sept. 20, the site posted a much larger document, “Summary of technical achievements of Iraq’s former nuclear program.” It runs to 51 pages, 18 focusing on the development of Iraq’s bomb design. Topics included physical theory, the atomic core and high-explosive experiments. By early October, diplomats and officials said, United Nations arms inspectors in New York and their counterparts in Vienna were alarmed and discussing what to do.
The government had received earlier warnings about the contents of the Web site. Last spring, after the site began posting old Iraqi documents about chemical weapons, United Nations arms-control officials in New York won the withdrawal of a report that gave information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by causing respiratory failure.
The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran or other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states. The official, who requested anonymity because of his agency’s rules against public comment, called the papers “a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car.”
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
Weren’t we told that the Saddam being a year away from building a nuke was just another lie cooked up by the sinister Bush Administration? Weren’t we told that Saddam had no WMD programs? Weren’t we told that Hans Blix had made sure that there were no more programs and that Clinton had destroyed the last of Saddam’s WMD?
I have article after article that appeared prominently in most of the major newspapers in the country that said that the Kay and Duelfer inspection teams indicated that Saddam not only had no WMD, but no programs as well. USAToday even reported that the inspection teams said that Iraq had no facilities to produce WMD. Those of us that actually read the inspection team reports know that the antique media was not telling us the whole truth, but was actively painting a false picture.
The New York Times had to let the cat out of the bag so that they could take a pre-election shot at the Bush Administration.





out. :blsmoke:
 

bradlyallen2

Well-Known Member
That's only a half-truth. They did in fact of WMD, but it was all from the 80s, and of questionable usability. Though you also fail to address what the trucks that conveniently vanished into Syria before the invasion were transporting. I don't think it would have been oil, because its inefficient to transport oil using vehicles that consume oil. You get into the horses to carry fodder for horses argument, where you have to have continuously more horses to carry the fodder for the horses carrying the fodder for the horses carrying the goods being transported.

Of course, I don't think I should be surprised that you're telling half-truths. You routinely sound like Grow-Rebel who is an extremist nut case.
Saddam admitted he had WMD's after he was captured. Didn't hear about it on the news? Not surprised.... Saddam shut down the program because of the costs involved, no other reason. Thank G*D for free markets, even in WMD'S :lol:.

He planned on using the "Oil For Food" program (remember that atrocity) monies to reconstitute his WMD program after the heat was off. he honestly just miscalculated with Bush, he never thought Bush would attack. Thank G*D he did, or today we would be looking at an unstable iraq with WMD's.

George has kept us safe at the cost of his reputation from those who are not civil citizens. I tip my hat to his choosing leadership over popularity.

I for one will never personally insult a President, ANY President. If that day happens, I will know I have lost my true objectivity and my info filters are forever tainted. I see some of oyu have already fallen over the cliff. I can barely see you. :mrgreen:



out. :blsmoke:
Ahh I am guessing those trucks were full of Iraqi soldiers, they have been known to flee a battle given the chance and this is about a thousand times more likely as an explanation vs WMD. And let me get this straight Cracker-jacked, you think Iraq would have been unstable had we NOT invaded? And you ascribe the miraculous success (laughing as I type that word) achieved in Iraq to leadership from Bush? Holy shit! I enjoy reading the variety of opinions here on RIU but man this takes the cake. I am trying to think of something to say but I am speechless...wow.
 

diemdepyro

Well-Known Member
:wall::wall::wall::wall:We will never know what would have been. Is that such a difficult
concept. The entire media is no "proof". We were not there, therfore we do not know what woulda, shoulda, coulda been.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Uhhh, the very reason we went in was because Iraq was unstable....where you been? So you think Saddam would've just played nice if we hadn't invaded? Wow...... considering he never played nice, I'll just mark that down to wishful thinking.


out. :blsmoke:
 

tipsgnob

New Member
today during georges goodbye press conference, he was asked what his biggest fuck up was and he said, "the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq"....
nuff said
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
Here yah go....now since i have PROVEN you are NOT informed...please pick up a book and read a bit before you post nonsense.

I know it must feel good to bash with others... just make sure you don't make a fool of yourself in the process.... like Grow Rebel... :roll:

read below:

NYT Admits Saddam Preserved Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Programs
out. :blsmoke:
Oh have you really? ... and when pray tell did you do that? Link please ... or did this happen when your bushwhack mind was tripping out? ... oh I see now ... it's because you wrote "PROVEN" in capital letters ... well that says it all doesn't it ... :roll:

Notice folks at home another bushwhack tactic ... they cut and paste some bull shit op ed piece from a bush whacked site ... note folks at home ... no source link ... that's how they do it ... just cut and paste without revealing the whack job source ... :spew:

... and WTF does the NYT have to do with admitting Hussein had weapons? Were they helping him to hide them? ... you said Hussein said it ... not to mention who ever wrote this op-ed is obviously wrong.... Hussein had no weapons during the time of the illegal invasion ... that's a fact ... if you are too stupid to accept fact that's not my problem ...
out:-P

... now folks at home ... who is looking like a fool? But that's how the bushwhacked are ... love to project their own short comings on others ... just like their illegitimate leader ...That's why I love to bash them ... it's sooo much fun ... the work is it's own reward ... :-o
:clap:
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
So much for the bushwhacked op ed ...

Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs


(CNN) -- Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.

David Kay: Exclusive interview


David Kay, who resigned last week as the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, now says he didn't find stockpiles of WMD — or evidence of a nuclear program well under way in Saddam Hussein's Iraq —

Kay's say and the CIA


David Kay's exit interview was odd. In resigning as chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, he made news. "I don't think they existed," he said of the WMD supposedly stockpiled by Saddam Hussein.

Nuff said ... :clap:
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
im pretty sure saddam being destroyed after desert storm was not just going to be let go by saddam.

In the world of power deciete and revenge a true man of the world would always know that nothing goes unpunished,therefore if u attack you must be ready to destoy with one quik blow completely

we slapped saddam sent him packing back to baghdad in 1992. he was broke and pissed off ever since..........


now the truth:

Reasons for intervention during the first gulf war:

The United States and the United Nations gave several public justifications for involvement in the conflict. The most prominent reason was the Iraqi violation of Kuwaiti territorial integrity. In addition, the United States moved to support its ally of Saudi Arabia, whose importance in the region and as a key supplier of oil made it of considerable geopolitical importance. During a speech given on September 11, 1990, U.S. President George H.W. Bush summed up the reasons with the following remarks: "Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression."[15]

now my children everyone knows even the most secret of revenges is not pleasurable unless the person revenged on somhow knows it.

(for the slow ones september 11th 1990 was the day George bush sienor anounced his reason for operation dessert storm),

looks like they noticed, looks like they went back for him, looks like

saddam is taking an old fashioned dirt nap


this is the real story of why the attacks were made on 9/11 and why saddam allied himself with with ansar al islam and Al-queda to help them perpetuate such a complicated attack on the united states


remember never before have terrorists actauly targeted american leaders

usually it was always to easy soft targets

but this time they want George Bush on a platter, including his father.....

this is why plane was flown into the whithouse or was atemped
 

CrackerJax

New Member
today during georges goodbye press conference, he was asked what his biggest fuck up was and he said, "the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq"....
nuff said

He was right to say that. Of course most of the intelligence about Iraq was wrong. Most of it came from the Clinton administration..... nuff said.

BJ's don't make for much of a defense against terrorism.

out. :blsmoke:
 

tipsgnob

New Member
He was right to say that. Of course most of the intelligence about Iraq was wrong. Most of it came from the Clinton administration..... nuff said.

BJ's don't make for much of a defense against terrorism.

out. :blsmoke:
now that is a pile of shit..........
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Just check the timeline and figure out when most of the data was collected.... pretty easy to figure out it was Clinton.

Add the unbelievable amount of attacks against our embassies and soldiers and World Trade Tower, etc. , met with no response and one might surmise that Clinton lit the fuse before leaving office. Nice guy.....not a good Pres., but I guess it's fitting he was impeached, even if it was for ONLY perjury. Nice guy....

Hell if Clinton hadn't INSISTED upon treating the World trade Towers as a Criminal case instead of a security issue......we might still have our towers and a few planes back with people as well.

Ur right, it is a pile of shit..... you're starting to get it. Glad I could help. Turn off CNN, do urself a favor.



out. :blsmoke:

out. :blsmoke:
 

jfgordon1

Well-Known Member
Hell if Clinton hadn't INSISTED upon treating the World trade Towers as a Criminal case instead of a security issue......we might still have our towers anda few planes back with people as well.
didnt matter dude... those buildings were coming down ne way...

9/11 was the best thing tht ever happened to bush
 

Spitzered

Well-Known Member
Liberals are so predictable, selective memory.





"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998





"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others





"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002





"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998





"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998





"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002





"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." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002





"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002





"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002





"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998





"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, 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 will continue to increase his capacity 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." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002





"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003





"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998





"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." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002





"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002





"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002





"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002





"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002





"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002





"(W)e 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. ...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." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003




"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002





"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002




"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002





"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998





"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998





"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002





"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002





"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
 
Top