What the Democrats said about WMD

[Skinzaholic]

Source (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml)

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 30, 2004
"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

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

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

[akhhorus]

Looks like everyone was wrong, excpet for the Weapons INspectors...

[Jimreaper007]

The important thing here is what the Republicans said because they control both houses and it's not like the Dems could have stopped them anyway....


Basically the Republicans are saying...well they voted for it too!


How childish is that?????


The bottom line is all of this crap happened on the Republican watch. Republicans control everything so it's just plain lame for them not to accept the accountability/responsibility for what is happening.

GW and friends always trying to avoid blame...

[SkinsGuru]

Were these guys provided with all the intelligence there was or were they swayed into believing the WMD program was allive an well when as we all NOW know it wasn't????

[NamVet4]

Kevin,
Those are quotes, which I assume, are based on the same intelligence reports and data that President Bush was being given - which are now believed to be flawed intelligence. If so, then it confirms that a significant number of our politicians were wrong! President Bush included! The significant difference is that President Bush has and had the authority to act. None of the other politicians you sourced, aside from the former President Bill Clinton when in office, have the constitutional authority to commit troops to engage an enemy. President Bush did so and sent us into war that we won – won in as much as our troops defeated trained government troops and captured the Iraqi leader! It is the insurgent conflict that we are not winning. It is the Presidents action based on flawed intelligence that brought our troops to this point. Was war the absolute last recourse? Was the commitment of troops into a flawed scenario, with the addition of a poor exit strategy really required at that place and time?
That is what truly bothers me about the President. And if his words were spoken in earnest, based on the intelligence at hand, who is ultimately responsible to check and recheck the intelligence before committing to such a terrible course of action?

[Spence]

Which one of those Democrats took the country to war based on phoney intelligence? Which one of those Democrats suppressed competing intelligence which cast significant doubt on existence of any Iraqi WMD program?

[Jimreaper007]

Exactly the point....

No one can put troops into harm's way except the President.

Therefore trying to spread the blame to the Dems shows his lack of accountability/responsibility.

Just like he strolled across the deck of that aircraft carrier like he was Napolean, now he must stand up and explain to the American people why he committed their sons and duaghters to a conflict that we were not prepared for.

[RedskinsDave]

Napolean strolled across and aircraft carrier?

[dukeuch]

Napolean strolled across and aircraft carrier?

Yeah, I think Reagan told that story while he was in office.

[MrWiggles]

Letting the Dems off the hook because they didn't have the power to send troops is silly. If a Dem was in office, and they were given the same intel it sounds like a fair number would have been off to Iraq. Its easy for Kerry or any other Dem to say they wouldn't have sent troops knowing what they know now. The real question is would they have sent troops knowing what they knew then.

(Of course, they wouldn't have been given the same intel. Not unless they had Wolfowitz and Cheney warping everything to fit a predtermined outcome)

The real issue is how any of these politicians would have gone about the war. Would they have sent enough troops? Would they have gaurded more than the oil pipelines? Would they have a workable exit strategy?

Giving Bush the benefit of the doubt (and there are HUGE doubts) about the intel screw-up is fine. We'll say it was all Tennets fault. However, entering the country into a war with this little planning is inexcusable.

[Jimreaper007]

Your sure it was napolean or Space Aliens with Reagan?

He was seeing both.....

[Jimreaper007]

Letting the Dems off the hook because they didn't have the power to send troops is silly. If a Dem was in office, and they were given the same intel it sounds like a fair number would have been off to Iraq. Its easy for Kerry or any other Dem to say they wouldn't have sent troops knowing what they know now. The real question is would they have sent troops knowing what they knew then.

(Of course, they wouldn't have been given the same intel. Not unless they had Wolfowitz and Cheney warping everything to fit a predtermined outcome)

The real issue is how any of these politicians would have gone about the war. Would they have sent enough troops? Would they have gaurded more than the oil pipelines? Would they have a workable exit strategy?

Giving Bush the benefit of the doubt (and there are HUGE doubts) about the intel screw-up is fine. We'll say it was all Tennets fault. However, entering the country into a war with this little planning is inexcusable.

All I will say is that GW is the one preaching about leadership in these debates.

1. He sent our troops into harms way without the proper equipment.
2. He declared the hostilities over and did not send that memo to the terrorists.
3. He has had four years to do something with this economy/jobs...

A great leader is just as responsible/accountable for his blunders as he is for his successes.

GW is not the standup guy he claims to be..

[Spence]

Letting the Dems off the hook because they didn't have the power to send troops is silly. If a Dem was in office, and they were given the same intel it sounds like a fair number would have been off to Iraq. Its easy for Kerry or any other Dem to say they wouldn't have sent troops knowing what they know now. The real question is would they have sent troops knowing what they knew then.We already know the answer to that question. President Clinton saw the same intel Bush did. He didn't invade Iraq.