Weapons of Mass Dismay

We’re supposedly going to learn a lot more from Wikileaks today.

http://cryptome.org/0002/sigacts/centcom-sigacts.htm

They lied to us.
Why shouldn’t they be in jail?
Any good answers, Freep?

I need to remind Mark Thompson that the Clinton administration left office in January 2001 still claiming that Saddam had WMD:
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/Albright-1-8-2001.pdf

Because of this belief, the Clinton argued that Saddam was “a clear and present danger at all times,” i.e., an imminent threat.
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/Holbrooke-1-11-2001.pdf

IF it was a false premise to say Iraq had WMD, then Bush inherited that false premise.

So, given your premise, it’s OK if they couldn’t think for themselves. Yeah.

“What do forces do coming out of Afghanistan?”

That about sums it up for the calamity to follow.

“Less than three months after 9/11, the Bush Administration was planning for war with Iraq.”

—————————————-

“There’s a picture of the World Trade Center hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my Kevlar [flak jacket]. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, ‘They hit us at home and, now, it’s our turn.’ I don’t want to say payback but, you know, it’s pretty much payback.”

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/payback/

nflfoghorn:

So you think the Bush admin should have discarded all the intelligence concerning Saddam’s WMD during the past 8 years and started from scratch?

And let’s remember that because Clinton believed Saddam had WMD and refused to lift sanctions on Iraq, 567,000 Iraqi children under 5 died on Clinton’s watch (according to the UN FAO). In a 1997 interview with CNN, bin Laden said he would send Clinton “messages with no words” in response to those deaths. In other words, Clinton’s policies vis-a-vis Iraq ultimately led to 9/11.

groenhagen2,

YOU ARE BLAMING PRES CLINTON FOR 9/11!!!! Why do you hate America?

Now I read both your PDF downloads. And nowhere did I read that anyone thought we should invade Iraq. This was the Bush administration’s bad idea and theirs alone.

In fact there was ample evidence, ignored, that the ongoing belief that Iraq had WMD was no longer true.

As I recall, Clinton was making the argument that Saddam wanted (not that he had) WMD as a reason for continuing to enforce the no fly zones and the trade sanctions against Iraq. At the time, both of those were becoming controversial. There were people on the left, and I bet this would include many who post here, who wanted the sanctions lifted because we felt they were causing a humanitarian crisis that wasn’t justified by the danger Saddam posed. Clinton was making a very different argument than Bush did.

Perhaps the coporal who said this had listened to Sen. Bob Kerrey:

“I believe all three of these incidents should be considered as connected to our containment policy against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I can think of no more fitting tribute to the 17 sailors lost on-board the Cole than completing our mission and helping the Iraqi people achieve freedom and democracy.”

The three incidents Kerrey was referring to were the two embassy bombings in 1998 and bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Kerrey, a Democrat, said this shortly after the Cole incident.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=3541

Kerrey would later serve on the 9/11 Commission and made this comment concerning Iraq in 2007:

“No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107

“In other words, Clinton’s policies vis-a-vis Iraq ultimately led to 9/11.”
.
You don’t think there should’ve been sanctions on Iraq? Or are you going with “Clinton should’ve invaded Iraq”?

destor23:

“As I recall, Clinton was making the argument that Saddam wanted (not that he had) WMD as a reason for continuing to enforce the no fly zones and the trade sanctions against Iraq.”

You’re absolutely wrong. As the PDF concerning Madeleine Albright I linked to notes, the Clinton admin argued that Saddam had WMD, not that he merely wanted them. That’s what Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 was all about. The sanctions and that preemptive attack were all about the fact that Saddam had not demonstrated that he had destroyed his WMD.

“Franks said that U.S. intelligence had identified more than 40 places in Afghanistan where WMD research might be happening, and that U.S. experts were scrubbing the sites for evidence of such work.”

Did they ever find the Bat Cave where OBL cooked up this stuff?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-rest-is-silence/

Groeny, seems that you’re the water-bearer for the faaaaar right today.
We had Hussein flanked on both parallels. He couldn’t breathe without knowing what cologne he was using. There was no need to invade Iraq. You can’t sugarcoat it.

Is there anything more fungible than the responsibility part of “The Party of Personal Responsibility”?

jsfox:

“Now I read both your PDF downloads. And nowhere did I read that anyone thought we should invade Iraq. This was the Bush administration’s bad idea and theirs alone.”

And. of course, that was prior to 9/11. Reasonable people believe that Clinton also would have invaded Iraq if he had been president after 9/11.

“In fact there was ample evidence, ignored, that the ongoing belief that Iraq had WMD was no longer true.”

So do you believe the Clinton admin was telling the truth when it said Iraq had WMD in January 2001? If so, tell us exactly at what point between January 2001 and March 2003 Saddam destroyed his WMD.

So you think the Bush admin should have discarded all the intelligence concerning Saddam’s WMD during the past 8 years and started from scratch?

Why not? It’s precisely what they did with all of the collected intelligence that warned of Al Qaeda as an imminent threat. Face facts, W and his regime had their own agenda as evidenced by Mark Thompson’s post and supporting documents. They invaded Iraq under a false pretense and you’re okay with that.

nflfoghorn:

“Groeny, seems that you’re the water-bearer for the faaaaar right today.
We had Hussein flanked on both parallels. He couldn’t breathe without knowing what cologne he was using. There was no need to invade Iraq. You can’t sugarcoat it.”

If that’s the case, why did Kenneth Pollack, Clinton’s top adviser on Iraq, write in 2002 that the sanctions regime was ineffective and failing?

diescast:

“Why not? It’s precisely what they did with all of the collected intelligence that warned of Al Qaeda as an imminent threat.”

Where is the evidence to support that claim? Richard Clarke himself wrote “In Against All Enemies” that there was no “proof or specificity” concerning an imminent al Qaeda attack during the summer of 2001.

“Face facts, W and his regime had their own agenda as evidenced by Mark Thompson’s post and supporting documents. They invaded Iraq under a false pretense and you’re okay with that.”

The Clinton admin launched a preemptive attack on Iraq in December 1998 because it said Saddam had not destroyed his WMD. Was that attack based on a false pretense. I just want to see if you’re consistent with your argument, or if you are merely a partisan.

@groen: Good links. But you surely see that believing a threat exists and that sanctions are the appropriate repsonse is not the same as viewing an imminent danger that warrants invasion, right?

In any event, many of us think Clinton went too far too.

destor23:

“Good links. But you surely see that believing a threat exists and that sanctions are the appropriate repsonse is not the same as viewing an imminent danger that warrants invasion, right?”

Again, the links are for documents that were issued prior to 9/11. As my quotes from Sen. Bob Kerrey indicate, 9/11 was a game changer. Adnd remember the use of force against Iraq was authorized by a Democrat-controlled Senate.

“[And] remember the use of force against Iraq was authorized by a Democrat [sic]-controlled Senate”
.
…that was bullied into submission as ‘un-American’ by the right.

momentomori:

“You don’t think there should’ve been sanctions on Iraq? Or are you going with “Clinton should’ve invaded Iraq”?”

If Saddam had no WMD, how could Clinton justify continued sanctions on Iraq?

nflfoghorn:

“…that was bullied into submission as ‘un-American’ by the right.”

Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, et. al., were bullied into authorizing the use of force against Iraq? That doesn’t say much for the Democrat Party.

9/11 was a game changer.

What did 9/11 and Al Qaeda have to do with Iraq? You seem to have confused the two. How precisely did invading Iraq make us safer or suppress terrorist attacks?
..
In regard to your question about Clinton and the Iraq sanctions: Clinton went too far and the sanctions were too aggressive with tremendous collateral damage.
..

Reasonable people believe that Clinton also would have invaded Iraq if he had been president after 9/11.

Who exactly are these reasonable people and why would they invade Iraq when it had nothing to do with 9/11?

No it doesn’t speak well of the “Democrat Party.” Or of anybody with half a brain. But you can’t for a minute say that they weren’t severely pressured into voting for war. They actually thought the Blush admin was telling them the truth!

nflfoghorn:

“But you can’t for a minute say that they weren’t severely pressured into voting for war. They actually thought the Blush admin was telling them the truth!”

You don’t really believe that do you? Again, the Clinton admin spent 8 years saying that Saddam had WMD, so it’s not like the Bush admin was telling Democrats anything new. Bill Clinton himself said he supported the Iraq invasion. And I note that John Edwards said he voted to authorize force against Iraq because what the Bush admin said about Iraq’s WMD was consistent with what he was hearing from former Clinton admin officials.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/

diecash:

“What did 9/11 and Al Qaeda have to do with Iraq? You seem to have confused the two. How precisely did invading Iraq make us safer or suppress terrorist attacks?”

I linked to the item concerning Bob Kerrey’s remarks about this in 2000 and 2007. If you had read them, you would not have had to ask that question.

“Who exactly are these reasonable people and why would they invade Iraq when it had nothing to do with 9/11?”

Clinton himself said he aupported the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994507-7,00.html

In an interview with Tim Russert, journalists Tom Brokaw and Ted Koppel said they believed Clinton would have invaded Iraq had he been president at the time. Koppel, BTW, used to be Kenneth Pollack’s father-in-law. Pollack was Clinton’s top adviser on Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10531436/

Of course Saddam had WMD’s we had the receipts.
.
Nobody believed that he’d actually disassembled all the chemical weapons we’d sold him.
.
By that i do not mean to condone the invasion in any way shape or form, there was not much he could do with the weapons, as was proved by the fact that he, for the longest time, did nothing with them.

“The press focused on Afghanistan instead, and the possibility that Osama bin Laden might have been developing his own weapons of mass destruction — biological, chemical or nuclear — there.”

Luckily someone at the White House had the wisdom to put the staff on Cipro beginning September 11, right?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_1967.shtml

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/culture-of-deception/

That’s an old joke that is not based on the truth. Saddam never received any WMD from the U.S. You last sentence is illogical. We have had nuclear weapons from the longest time, yet have down nothing with them since 1945. Does it then follow that there is not much we could do with the weapons?

“They lied to us.
Why shouldn’t they be in jail?
Any good answers, Freep?
.
For those you you who still remained convinced that it was a BUsh plot maybe you should ask the Demos about the letter they sent to then Prez Clinton. Seem the lying started in 1998 not and 2001.

“[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

“Less than three months after 9/11, the Bush Administration was planning for war with Iraq.”
.
You mean these guys?:

Donald Rumsfeld • Paul Wolfowitz • Richard Perle • John Bolton • Richard L. Armitage • William Kristol • Elliott Abrams • William J. Bennett • Robert Kagan • Vin Weber • Robert B. Zoellick • R. James Woolsey • Zalmay Khalilzad • Paula Dobriansky • Jeffrey Bergner • Francis Fukuyama • Peter W. Rodman • William Schneider, Jr.

Idiot.
.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

No, what Clinton said was this: “I would not have done it [invaded Iraq] until after Hans Blix finished his job.” Had Blix been able to finish inspecting and found nothing, there would have been no cause for the Iraq invasion and W couldn’t allow that to happen.
..
As for your reasonable people: Who cares whether or not journalists think it reasonable to invade a foreign nation under false pretense.
..
Just because Bob Kerrey believes it doesn’t make it so. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the Cole attack or the Khobar towers bombing. W and his clowns took their eye off of Al Qaeda before 9/11 and very shortly after 9/11 they made plans for invading Iraq, creating a diversion from the real terrorist threat. Iraq was a massive mistake and we will be paying for it for a very long time. Look no further than what happened in Afghanistan after we invaded Iraq and diverted necessary resources and attention away form the Afghan campaign; we’re still paying for that mistake.

“Less than three months after 9/11, the Bush Administration was planning for war with Iraq”

———————————————

How about seven months BEFORE 9/11?

“Mr. O’Neill, who was dismissed by Mr. Bush more than a year ago over differences on economic policy, said Iraq was discussed at the first National Security Council meeting after Mr. Bush’s inauguration. The tone at that meeting and others, Mr. O’Neill said, was ”all about finding a way to do it,” with no real questioning of why Mr. Hussein had to go or why it had to be done then. ”For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap,” Mr. O’Neill said.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06EFD61430F931A25752C0A9629C8B63

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/ring-the-bells/

Ok, wasn’t it Clarke who said that on November 12th, Cheney came into the meeting telling the National Security team to find some way to link it to Iraq?

Sorry, September 12th

I think this is what you meant:

Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and “testily” asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying “Please update and resubmit”.[11] After initially denying that such a meeting between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke’s version of the events.[12][13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

Albeit predictably, thank you for responding.

Freep — You might want to check out the link at #12.

The neocons started “planning” to invade Iraq and take down Saddam almost the minute The Gulf War ended. It’s one of the reasons they helped Junior take The White House and put the Darth Dick Cheney in charge.

“KRISTOL: I was unhappy in 1991 when we stopped the war and left this brutal tyrant in power. I think we betrayed the people who rose up against Saddam, a genuine popular uprising. That was a big mistake on the part of the Bush administration. A political mistake and a moral mistake.”

The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam’s removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

“Saddam never received any WMD from the U.S.”

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.
.
A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.
.
Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics
.
Idiot.

“Ok, wasn’t it Clarke who said that on November 12th, Cheney came into the meeting telling the National Security team to find some way to link it to Iraq?”

No, Clarke claimed that Bush pulled him aside and ask him to find out if Iraq was involved. That was a reasonable request since the Clinton admin, including Clarke, spent much of 1998-2000 claiming that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating. Remember, when the Clinton admin bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in August 1998, their justifcation was that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating on manufacturing WMD. The Clinton admin’s indictment against bin Lden in 1998 also noted that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating on weapons development.
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/OsamaIndictment.pdf

shepherdwong:

“The neocons started “planning” to invade Iraq and take down Saddam almost the minute The Gulf War ended. It’s one of the reasons they helped Junior take The White House.”

Odd then that you would quote Bill Kristol after making this claim. Kristol’s “Weekly Standard,” after all, endorsed John McCain, and not George W. Bush, in 2000.

michaelfry:

O’Neill also said this:

“You know, people are trying to make the case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that we needed regime change in Iraq.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_01_11_corner-archive.asp#022684

It never ceases to amaze how liberals continue to repeat stuff years after it had been debunked.

Less than three months after 9/11, the Bush Administration was planning for war with Iraq.

Nope. Try ‘less than six days’ after 9/11.

The decision to confront Iraq was in many ways a victory for a small group of conservatives who, at the start of the administration, found themselves outnumbered by more moderate voices in the military and the foreign policy bureaucracy. Their tough line on Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001, was embraced quickly by President Bush and Vice President Cheney after the attacks. But that shift was not communicated to opponents of military action until months later, when the internal battle was already decided.

By the time the policy was set, opponents were left arguing over the tactics — such as whether to go to the United Nations — without clearly understanding how the decision was reached in the first place. “It simply snuck up on us,” a senior State Department official said.

The administration has embarked on something “quite extraordinary in American history, a preventive war, and the threshold for justification should be extraordinarily high,” said G. John Ikenberry, an international relations professor at Georgetown University. But “the external presentation and the justification for it really seems to be lacking,” he said. “The external presentation appears to mirror the internal decision-making quite a bit.”

It’s pretty chilling to read an original source document — basically the starting gun for the war with Iraq — begin with a false premise.

It’s not just that the premise was false – Saddam Hussein wasn’t being too friendly to inspectors, if I remember right, making hard to prove or disprove anything – it’s that the unproven threat of Saddam using and supplying of WMD to terrorist orgs was greatly exaggerated…which was necessary to provide that “extraordinarily high” “threshold for justification” for preemptive war against Iraq.

“It’s not just that the premise was false – Saddam Hussein wasn’t being too friendly to inspectors, if I remember right, making hard to prove or disprove anything – it’s that the unproven threat of Saddam using and supplying of WMD to terrorist orgs was greatly exaggerated…which was necessary to provide that “extraordinarily high” “threshold for justification” for preemptive war against Iraq.”

Of course, it was Bill Clinton, Richard Clarke, and other in the Clinton admin who first described that threat. Clarke noted that Iraq could hand over WMD to terrorist organizations in a 1998 speech that introduced the doctrine of preemption:
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/RichardClarke10-8-98.pdf

Clinton noted that threat when he stated his support for the Iraq invasion:

“That’s why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, ‘Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.’ You couldn’t responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he’d [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he’d sell this stuff or give it away.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994507-7,00.html

“Odd then that you would quote Bill Kristol after making this claim. Kristol’s “Weekly Standard,” after all, endorsed John McCain, and not George W. Bush, in 2000.”
.
Which was why, right about the time Bush won the Republican nomination, all of the neocons threw their support behind presidential candidate Al Gore. Still an idiot.

“Clarke noted that Iraq could hand over WMD to terrorist organizations in a 1998 speech that introduced the doctrine of preemption:”
.
You’re also a liar (in addition to being an idiot). Clarke doesn’t say a word about “Iraq…hand[ing] over WMDs to terrorists” (did you even read your own link?) and the issue isn’t being able to hit terrorists stockpiling weapons (“preemption”), the issue has been the Wolfowitz/Bush/Cheney invention of “preventative war,” invading a sovereign country because it might become a threat in the future, i.e., a war crime.
.

The United States reserves for itself the right of self-defense, and if that means our taking the first step, we will do so,” he said. “We will not tolerate terrorist organizations acquiring or maintaining stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. [emphasis mine]

Now that we’ve determined that you’re a partisan idiot and a liar, why don’t you STFU.

Of course, it was Bill Clinton, Richard Clarke, and other in the Clinton admin who first described that threat. Clarke noted that Iraq could hand over WMD to terrorist organizations in a 1998 speech that introduced the doctrine of preemption.

Nope. The introduction of the doctrine of preemption (in modern America at least) goes back to Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, back when they were working for Bush ’41.

As for the Clinton administration’s focus on Iraqi WMD in 1998, well, they found a way to deal with that threat than other than engaging in a full-scale invasion based on exaggerated and falsified evidence.

edit: “…threat than other than engaging…”

shepherdwong:

I’m going to have to counter your immature name-calling with the facts. Go back to the Clarke document and read about the two lists he discussed. First, he mentioned a list of countries on the State Department’s state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq was one of the seven countries on that list in 1998. Then Clarke mentioned the list of countries with WMD. Iraq was also on that list in Iraq. If Clarke was not talking about the possibility of Iraq giving WMD to terrorists, please tell us which country or countries he was referring to.

grape_crush:

Operation Desert Fox was a preemptive attack on Iraq based on the premise that Iraq had WMD. If Iraq had no WMD, then how can you justify that attack?

“The Clinton admin’s indictment against bin Lden in 1998 also noted that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating on weapons development.”

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superseding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand.

You can’t rewrite history here you lying, partisan @sshole.

shepherdwong:

I’ve noticed that you and many other liberals have extremely poor rerading skills. In the quote you pulled out above concerning a terrorist organization acquiring WMD, you apparently missed the fact that Clarke noted that such an organization would most likely acquire such weapons from a rogue nation, i.e., a nation like Iraq. My advice would be to read for content and comprehension rather than cherrypicking a quote that you mistakenly believe contradicts what another poster has written. That would make you look far less foolish.

shephardwong:

First, biological agents are not WMD. If they were, then yuo would have to say that Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion since labs throughout Iraq had biologial agents in stock, i.e., you cannot simultaneously argue that Iraq had WMD and did not have WMD. Second, there is no evidence, let alone proof, that any of the biological agents were ever used in the production of WMD in Iraq.

“Go back to the Clarke document and read about the two lists he discussed.”
.
I don’t need to re-read the document. It was you who made up two obvious and verifiable lies about what Clarke said. You’ve been busted multiple times in thread for data-dredging lies and/or partisan stupidity. It is your credibility that is completely shot. Now please, before you embarrass yourself further (and make me call you more well-deserved names), slink away from the keyboard.

shepherdwong:

“You can’t rewrite history here you lying, partisan @sshole.”

Again, I’m going to have to counter your name-calling with the facts. Nothing Fitzpatrick said contradicts the fact that the Clinton admin’s indictment against bin Laden explicitly stated that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating on weapons development. In addition, as I noted above, the Clinton admin cited a connection between Iraq, al Qaeda, and weapons development after it bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in August 1998. Clarke wrote this in “Against All Enemies”: “Could Sudan, using bin Laden’s money, have hired some Iraqis to make chemical weapons? It seemed chillingly possible.” In addition, no one from the Clinton administration has rescinded his or her earlier comments concerning al Shifa, Iraq, and al Qaeda, even when given the opportunity to do so before the 9/11 Commission.

First, biological agents are not WMD.

According to whom? W sure thought that they were.

During an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Bush declared that UN inspectors had “concluded” that Iraq in the 1990s had actually produced “two to four times” the 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents than it had acknowledged making. Bush went on: “This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.” But UN inspectors had concluded no such thing. They had reported destroying key facilities Iraq had used to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The inspectors had encountered discrepancies in the accounting of Iraq’s weapons and WMD material and had noted that Iraq could have produced more weapons than the inspectors had uncovered. Bush was misstating the facts to turn a possible stockpile of WMDs into an actual arsenal.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/karl-rove-book-george-bush-iraq-wmd

diecash:

You can dismiss Brokaw and Koppel, who most likley know far, far more about Iraq than you, but how do you dismiss Bill Clinton, who said he supported the “Iraq thing,” i.e., the invasion. If Clinton opposed the invasion, why didn’t he counsel his wife to vote against the authorization of force against Iraq?

“Had Blix been able to finish inspecting and found nothing, there would have been no cause for the Iraq invasion and W couldn’t allow that to happen.”

And when would have Blix finished? UN inspectors were in Iraq from 1991 to November 1998 and were forced out still believing Iraq was hiding large amounts of WMD. And let’s not forget that when Blix headed the IAEA during the 1980s and early 1990s, he actually gave Iraq a clean bill of health concerning its nuclear program. After Operation Desert Storm we learned that Iraq was just months from having an operational nuclear weapon. Blix was duped by the Iraqis before; what makes you so confident that they would not have duped him again?

If Iraq had no WMD…
.
Who said Iraq had no WMD back in 1998, before Operation Desert Fox?
.
Now, after the 1998 airstrikes a chief United Nations weapons inspector said:

I really think its time to approach Iraq’s disarmament as qualitative disarmament. There is no doubt that they’re hiding stuff from the weapons inspectors. What they’re hiding are drawings, blueprints, some components, some material. I call it seed stock. It’s the stuff you could put on the back of the truck, move it out to the farm, and then at some point, you can plant it and use it as a base to reconstitute weapons. Even in ballistic missiles, you have components that can be used to build the missile at a later date, but by themselves they do not constitute an operational ballistic missile. By themselves, the biological capability and chemical capability are not chemical weapons or biological weapons programs.

When you ask the question, “Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?” the answer is “NO!” It is a resounding “NO”. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is “no” across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/07/990712-for.htm
.
More here:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

shepherdwong:

“I don’t need to re-read the document. It was you who made up two obvious and verifiable lies about what Clarke said.”

You should because you obviously did not read it with any competent degree of comprehension the first time. Instead of flaying about with baseless charges of lying, you might actually consider reading something so that you don’t come off as an ignorant person.

As far as “partisan stupidity,” Bill Clinton claimed that Iraq had WMD and even launched a preemptive attack on Iraq because he said Iraq had WMD. Was that attack based on a lie? If you cannot answer that in the affirmative, then we know who the real partisan is here.

“Operation Desert Fox was a preemptive attack on Iraq based on the premise that Iraq had WMD. If Iraq had no WMD, then how can you justify that attack?”
.
I think the better question instead of the silly Clinton argument (since Clinton after all didn’t attack Iraq) is why did the reasoning change from finding and removing the WMDs to 3-4 other different ones?
.
The reason for WMD wasn’t really that strong to begin with. Hans Blix couldn’t find any and the ‘evidence’ such as the mobile labs was just baloney. So even if you try to say ‘Clinton’ said so, it falls on the fact that Clinton never went to war and Bush didn’t care so much about the fact finding mission. In fact Bush was just so gung ho that he didn’t even want to let Hans determine for sure and I assume that since Blix’s team was coming up empty after checking all these sites it would be harder and harder for Bush Co to maintain the rational of WMDs.
.
Why did we have to rush in without waiting? I don’t know. UK spread lies about imminent 5 minute launches, Bush Co talked about mushroom clouds over cities etc. Yet the evidence nor data supported it. And MSM was all to happy reporting every piece of garbage that came out of the process, Even worse – the deep throat guy we used for most of the intel and the one we hoped to force into Iraqs new regime as our puppet turned out to be lying out of his pants about WMDs and such.
.
When CIA don’t believe in the data and Cheney have to put together his own ‘intel’ group something rotten is indeed smelling in Denmark.
.
You can go ahead and blame Clinton, even the democratic party and whatnot but that’s par for the course for the party that apparently do not believe in responsibility. Just look at the economic calamity. Less then 2 years later it’s all Obama, as if he by miracle can turn the country around on a dime after such a deep abyss. Same with Iraq; it’s everyone’s fault except the guy who pushed the button.

diecash:

Biological agents are not WMD until they have been weaponized. Iraq did in fact have a biological weapons program that entailed the use of anthrax.

hippooath:

“I think the better question instead of the silly Clinton argument (since Clinton after all didn’t attack Iraq) is why did the reasoning change from finding and removing the WMDs to 3-4 other different ones?”

Your question is based on a faulty premise. The Bush admin cited five main rationales, including WMD, for removing Saddam from power PRIOR to the invasion. The emphasis on the rationales may have changed over time, but the rationales themselves were consistent.

“Hans Blix couldn’t find any and the ‘evidence’ such as the mobile labs was just baloney.”

Saddam himself never met with Blix and did not cooperate with him, which led Blix to conclude that Saddam was probably hiding something.

“Why did we have to rush in without waiting?”

Saddam had since 1991 to prove that he had destroyed his WMD. Is 12 years really a “rush”?

“Even worse – the deep throat guy we used for most of the intel and the one we hoped to force into Iraqs new regime as our puppet turned out to be lying out of his pants about WMDs and such.”

Chalabi? He was Clinton’s guy.

“When CIA don’t (sic) believe in the data and Cheney have to put together his own ‘intel’ group something rotten is indeed smelling in Denmark.”

The CIA presented the data to the UN.

“You can go ahead and blame Clinton, even the democratic party and whatnot but that’s par for the course for the party that apparently do not believe in responsibility.”

Asking Clinton and his party to assume a degree of responsibility for Iraq is not tantamount to saying Bush and his party bear no responsibility.

“Instead of flaying about with baseless charges of lying, you might actually consider reading something so that you don’t come off as an ignorant person.”
.
We’ve already tested my knowledge against your lies and you lost, over an over again. If you’re not lying than by all means name the specific Clarke statement that proves that this statement of yours isn’t a bald-faced, verifiable lie:

Clarke noted that Iraq could hand over WMD to terrorist organizations in a 1998 speech…

Predictably the left believes that Iraq with WMDs and terrorists began in Jan 2001 or Predictably you chose to ignore the reality of what occurred. Which one predictable from my previous response?
.
Other Dems were worried about the WMDs while Clinton was engaged in Cigar Diplomacy.

grape_crush:

“Who said Iraq had no WMD back in 1998, before Operation Desert Fox?”

That was the Clinton admin’s argument. The Clinton admin also argued that Saddam had WMD as late as January 2001. So what happened to the WMD between then and March 2003?

“The emphasis on the rationales may have changed over time, but the rationales themselves were consistent.
.
Yeah, consistent with a lying, fear-mongering marketing campaign:

Strategist Dick Morris spelled it out in a recent column: “Polls show that only one issue works in Bush’s favor: terrorism.”
.
Does Morris think the president is, as they say, “wagging the dog” to divert attention from other issues?
.
“He doesn’t need to wag the dog,” Morris writes. “He just needs to talk about wagging it to make the impact to keep control of Congress.”
.
Even the White House has hinted at a political strategy. As long ago as last January, Bush strategist Karl Rove said, “We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America’s military and thereby protecting America.”
.
Why did the Administration wait until September to make its case against Iraq? White House chief of staff Andrew Card told The New York Times last week, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”
.
In his speech to the United Nations, President Bush tried to shut down the political speculation. This is a life-and-death matter, the President insisted. “Sound Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year,” he told the U.N. General Assembly in New York Thursday.

He was a liar too.
.
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-09-12/politics/schneider.iraq_1_political-convenience-political-strategy-smoking-gun?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

hippooath:

“since Clinton after all didn’t attack Iraq”

BTW, he did in December 1998. See Operation Desert Fox. That was a preemptive attack based on the premise that Saddam had WMD.

grape_crush:

Given that quote from the UN inspector, do you then believe that the Clinton admin lied in 2001 when it said Iraq had WMD and, thus, was “a clear and present danger at all times”?

“…you cannot simultaneously argue that Iraq had WMD and did not have WMD.”
.
“…there is no evidence, let alone proof, that any of the biological agents were ever used in the production of WMD in Iraq.”
.
“Iraq did in fact have a biological weapons program that entailed the use of anthrax.”
.
Unbelievable.

Did I miss something? Did Clinton use the misinformation on Iraq to invade the country?

shepherdwong:

You didn’t answer my question:
Bill Clinton claimed that Iraq had WMD and even launched a preemptive attack on Iraq because he said Iraq had WMD. Was that attack based on a lie? If you cannot answer that in the affirmative, then we know who the real partisan is here.

First: There is a world of difference between asking “Is Saddam involved?” and “pull[ing] him and a couple of aides aside and “testily” ask[ing[ him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks”. In the former, you’re asking for an unbiased account while making sure the homework was done. The latter enforces the bias upon the process to override actual judgment. If it really was an honest attempt to get honest, unbiased information, why was the Bush Administration so willing to deny that it happened….and keep in mind that several staffers backed up Clarke’s account of the meeting.
.
Second: there was very poor intel linking Al Queda to Iraq and there is significant evidence that the focus of the Bush Administration was going back into Iraq even prior to 9/11. That said, the limited intel coupled with Bush’s personal predisposition to consider Saddam Hussein would make it a reasonable thought to wonder if Saddam was involved – it would be a knee jerk reaction but an understandable one. However, I point you to my first point on why that reasonable reaction does not seem to be the same as Bush’s actual reaction

“You didn’t answer my question:…”
.
You didn’t prove that I’m not debating a bald-faced, partisan liar. Anyway, no one knew what the status of Iraq’s pre-existing WMD program was in 2001 or 2002, which is why the Bush Administration’s fear-mongering statements of specific knowledge about Iraq’s WMD threat are so obviously lies designed to take the country into a disastrous, unnecessary war, unlike anything Clinton did to try to deal with the possible threat in a sane and measured way.
.
Now prove you’re not a liar (17.6) or I’m done with you.

groaner: Nuance. Attacking is not invading and occupying. Even George HW Bush knew the difference.

apr2563:

“groaner: Nuance. Attacking is not invading and occupying.”

The principle is the same. Bill Clinton launched a preemptive attack on Iraq because he said Iraq had WMD and that Saddam refused to demonstrate that he had destroyed his WMD. Now, if you believe it was a lie to say Iraq had WMD, did Bill Clinton lie?

shepherdwong:

You still didn’t answer my question, which means you essentially admitted that you are an extreme partisan.

“Anyway, no one knew what the status of Iraq’s pre-existing WMD program was in 2001 or 2002.”

If that is the case, why then did Madeleine Albright claim in January 2001 that Iraq still had WMD? Did she lie?

As far as 17.6, I covered that in 17.2. You did not answer the question I asked there, either? If Clarke was not referring to Iraq in his comments, which country or countries was he referring to?

It’s well documented that there were obvious issues with intel gathering about Saddam’s WMD capabilities that ran through both the Clinton and Bush administrations. However, there is no question that Bush had bloated reports about the WMD capabilities. The most notable incident is certainly the Yellow Cake which British Intel (who had passed the intel to the US originally) was not confident in it, the National Security team was completely unwilling to stand behind it (to the point that they wouldn’t accept the wording unless it was completely attributed to the Brits), and an operative for the US government had fully evaluated the situation and said the Intel was total hogwash. Basically, it was about as weak as Intel can get and Bush presented it in the State of the Union.
.
Equally, there was limited at best intel connecting Saddam Hussein to Al Queda and certainly that intel was far weaker than a number of other countries. The Intel was weak enough that even Cheney has acknowledged that they had no reason to believe that Saddam Hussein and Al Queda were connected.

…why did the reasoning change from finding and removing the WMDs to 3-4 other different ones?
.
Because the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of Iraqi WMD were bullsh!t.
.
When no WMD were found, they moved on to emphasizing the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
.
When it was discovered that al-Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq until after the US invaded, they moved on to regime change and building a country according to conservative principles. Then human rights. And oil. And establishing a military presence in a US-friendly country. And establishing military bases in the Middle East.
.
And then when all that began to rot, it was…what? Moral obligation for smashing things up? For the deaths of our soldiers not to be in vain? To help the Iraqis ‘stand up’ so we could stand down…which was after we needed to ‘stay the course’ in order to ‘win’ in Iraq.
.
What exactly did we win again? Some people got richer, but there’s no prize waiting on my doorstep.
.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was expensive, unnecessary, and predicated on right wing wishful thinking and worn-out lies. Worst of all, it was pointless.

forgottenlord:

“First: There is a world of difference between asking “Is Saddam involved?” and “pull[ing] him and a couple of aides aside and “testily” ask[ing[ him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks”.”

Not really much of a difference there. In any case, you misquoted Clarke. He said, “Well, the president wanted us to look to see if Iraq was involved.” That would be reasonalbe since the Clinton admin already said that Iraq and al Qaeda were working together. Clarke reiterated that in his book. Now, of course, you have to take everything Clarke says with a grain of salt since he has said so many false and contradictory things.

“In the former, you’re asking for an unbiased account while making sure the homework was done. The latter enforces the bias upon the process to override actual judgment. If it really was an honest attempt to get honest, unbiased information, why was the Bush Administration so willing to deny that it happened….and keep in mind that several staffers backed up Clarke’s account of the meeting.”

Which staffers?

“Second: there was very poor intel linking Al Queda to Iraq and there is significant evidence that the focus of the Bush Administration was going back into Iraq even prior to 9/11.”

Of course. Iraq was on the table when the Bush admin came into office because it was on the table when the Clinton admin left. It was Bill Clinton who signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, providing Ahmed Chalabi with backing, and launched the first preemptive attack on Iraq.

grape_crush:

As I noted above, there were no shifting rationales regarding the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There were essentially five main rationales offered prior to the invasion. You could say that the emphasis shifted regarding those rationales, but the rationales remain consistent.

“When no WMD were found, they moved on to emphasizing the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.”

You and your liberal friends need to get your talking points together. Theyre claiming above that the relationship rationale came BEFORE no WMD were found.

“When it was discovered that al-Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq until after the US invaded…”

Not true. An al Qaeda affiliate was operating in Iraq with impunity prior to the invasion.

“they moved on to regime change and building a country according to conservative principles.”

Not true. Regime change was offered as a rationale before the invasion.

” Then human rights.”

Not true. Again, offered prior to the invasion.

“And oil.”

Never heard that rationale before or after the invasion.

“And establishing a military presence in a US-friendly country. And establishing military bases in the Middle East.”

Not true. That was a rationale offered before the invasion. The Bush admin wanted to find an alternative to having troops in Saudi Arabia. Troops in that country were withdrawn less than a month after the invasion.

“The invasion and occupation of Iraq was expensive,unnecessary, and predicated on right wing wishful thinking and worn-out lies. Worst of all, it was pointless.”

So how would you have dealth with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein? David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and Saddam’s FBI interrogator all concluded that Saddam fully intended to develop WMD–including nuclear weapons–in the future. Do you believe we should have waited until he actually had nuclear weapons before we decided to strike?

…do you then believe that the Clinton admin lied in 2001 when it said Iraq had WMD and, thus, was “a clear and present danger at all times”?
.
Holbrook’s quote, my emphasis:

“Saddam Hussein’s activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world,” Holbrooke continued, “not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime.”
.
“His willingness to be cruel internally is not unique in the world, but the combination of that and his willingness to export his problems makes him a clear and present danger at all times…”

You’re using that quote out of context, Groo. You’re lying and you’ve just lost your argument.

You could say that the emphasis shifted regarding those rationales, but the rationales remain consistent.
.
So? Of those rationales, only two were of enough weight to justify a preemptive invasion and occupation of a foreign country – possession of WMD with an intent to use it against America or being a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. Neither one of those rationales were ever proven.
.
But boy, were they ever sold to the public.
.
Not true.
.
You’ve lied about and misstated other’s people’s positions repeatedly or just flat-out displayed your ignorance. At what point will you realize that very little of what you state is credible and arises from your right-wing, partisan point of view?

At what point will you realize that very little of what you state is credible and arises from your right-wing, partisan point of view?

I’ll take a stab at it. Uh,,,,,,,never? Yep, that sounds about right.
..
Grape: Nice summation @23. A friend and I used to discuss the shifting rationales given for the Iraq invasion; it would’ve been fun except for all the death and wanton destruction.

grape_crush:

You’re very ignorant on this topic. There were five main rationales. Niall Ferguson outlined them in “Colossus”:

1. Iraq had consistently failed to comply with UNSC resolutions and might—no one could of course be sure, precisely because of Iraqi noncooperation—have retained or recovered the capability to use or to export chemical or biological weapons.
2. Saddam was a bloody tyrant who had committed crimes against humanity, if not outright genocide.
3. The overthrow of Saddam might help to break the gridlock of the Middle East peace process by sending an unequivocal signal of hostility to any regime that defied the United States—pour encourager les autres, as much as to get rid of Saddam himself.
4. Creating a democratic Iraq might also begin a wholesale “transfor-mation of the Middle East” (in the words of Condoleezza Rice), with Iraq once again setting an example for the other Arab states.
5. Controlling Iraq might create alternative bases for U.S. troops in the Middle East, allowing them to leave Saudi Arabia (and thereby meeting at least one of the radical Islamists’ demands.)

Even without WMD being found, removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do.

“You’ve lied about and misstated other’s people’s positions repeatedly or just flat-out displayed your ignorance.”

That appears to be projection because I have not lied here once, let alone repeatedly. You may not like that facts, but that does not justify a baseless charge of lying, esp. when I just noted how many items you got wrong in your previous post.

grape_crush:

Oh, and you didn’t answer my question:

“So how would you have dealth with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein? David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and Saddam’s FBI interrogator all concluded that Saddam fully intended to develop WMD–including nuclear weapons–in the future. Do you believe we should have waited until he actually had nuclear weapons before we decided to strike?”

diecash:

“I’ll take a stab at it. Uh,,,,,,,never? Yep, that sounds about right.”

Translation: Groenhagen provided links to support his comments, and clearly beat us on the facts. However, instead of admitted that, I’ll join the chorus of ignorant liberals calling him a lying partisan in a futile attempt to save face.

Uh, no. You’re an obvious partisan and your diatribe is entirely fact-challenged. I find that it’s pointless to argue with an ideologue and you fit the description to a ‘T’.
..
You’ve failed to address the phantom link between Iraq and Al Qaeda and why the Bush administration was looking to invade Iraq before and after 9/11 when they should have taken care of Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. Conveniently, you ignore that salient point.
..
So yes, I’ll admit that you’re lacking a clear understanding of Iraq, 9/11, WMD, and host of other subjects and you’ve likely lost any opportunity to “save face” with your pathetic adherence to right-wing dogma.

diecash:

“You’ve failed to address the phantom link between Iraq and Al Qaeda and why the Bush administration was looking to invade Iraq before and after 9/11 when they should have taken care of Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. Conveniently, you ignore that salient point.”

I failed at that? Where was I challenged to do so? My points were clear in my initial post. I’ll reiterate them:

I need to remind Mark Thompson that the Clinton administration left office in January 2001 still claiming that Saddam had WMD:
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/Albright-1-8-2001.pdf

Because of this belief, the Clinton argued that Saddam was “a clear and present danger at all times,” i.e., an imminent threat.
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/Holbrooke-1-11-2001.pdf

If it was a false premise to say Iraq had WMD, then Bush inherited that false premise.
——————————————————–
If any of that is not true, let us know.

“So yes, I’ll admit that you’re lacking a clear understanding of Iraq, 9/11, WMD, and host of other subjects and you’ve likely lost any opportunity to “save face” with your pathetic adherence to right-wing dogma.”

I’ll put my understanding of Iraq, 9/11, and WMD up against yours any day of the week.
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/wrh.pdf

Niall Ferguson outlined them..
.
Oh, you’re getting your information from Ferguson, the right-winger’s academic du jour when it comes to justifying the neoconservative dream of Empire…Well, that explains a lot.
.
Rationales 1 and 2 were the only ones that could reasonably be used to to provide that “extraordinarily high” “threshold for justification” for preemptive war against Iraq. The other three were neoconservative pipe dreams of what ‘might’ happen if the US were to invade Iraq.
.
Of course, those five rationales weren’t the only ones used to justify our continued presence in Iraq, were they? The admission that increasing our access to oil was a surprising one made around the time of $4/gallon gas. That justification died rather quickly, for understandable reasons.
.
That appears to be projection because I have not lied here once.
.
18.9, where it’s shown that you’ve taken Holbrooke’s quote out of context.
.
18.2, where you’ve intentionally confused WMD claims in 1998 with those in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Different times, different amounts of evidence to back up those claims.
.
And then there’s 17.1, which Shep pointed out. To further his point, your Holbrooke link speaks of a threat generally:

It has become almost trite to say that after the orgy of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war and after the Aum Shinrikyo use of sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway. The threshold, the barrier, to chembio use has been lowered in the minds of some terrorists and some rogue states. Is it really likely that anyone will use chemical or biological weapons here in the United States?

Again, you’ve used a quote out of context. Bad form, Groo.
.
I could stretch and say that your claim of ‘preemptive war’ starting with Clinton (which I shot down at #18) was a lie, but I think that was just ignorance on your part.
.
Oh, and you didn’t answer my question
.
No need to. I’m done with you, I think.

grape_crush:

You’re either a poor reading or a liar. I did not take Holbrooke’s quote out of context. In fact, if you had read the whole document, you would have read the following: “The economic embargo imposed after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait remains in force until the UN certifies
that Iraq has eliminated its weapons of mass destruction.”

Also, if you had paid attention, when I linked to the Holbrooke document I also linked to a State Department document concerning Madeleine Albright. According to that document, “The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of the Clinton
administration January 20, current U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said.”
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/Albright-1-8-2001.pdf

Albright explicitly said Iraq had WMD, and not just the potential for WMD.

“18.2, where you’ve intentionally confused WMD claims in 1998 with those in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Different times, different amounts of evidence to back up those claims.”

If there is any confusion, it’s only in your mind. Clinton launched a preemptive attack against Iraq in 1998 because he believed Iraq had WMD. The Clinton admin continued to claim that Iraq had WMD as late as January 2001 and its national security principals continued to claim that in 2002 and early 2003. Bush launched a preemptive attack against Iraq in 2003 because he believed Iraq had WMD. There is absolutely no intelligence that suggest Saddam destroyed his WMD between January 2001 and March 2003.

“And then there’s 17.1, which Shep pointed out. To further his point, your Holbrooke link speaks of a threat generally:”

You are confused. That link did not even concern Holbrooke. It was to a speech Richard Clarke delivered. And it was far from a general threat that Clarke spoke of. Again, Clarke mentioned two lists when he spoke of the potential of a rogue state to hand off WMD to terrorists. One list was the state departments list of state sponsors of terrorism. Only seven nations, including Iraq, were on that list in 1998. The other list was nations suspected of having WMD. Iraq was on that list in 1998. Here is Clarke:

“What does it mean to be a state sponsor of terrorism? It means that you have trained, equipped,
financed, provided sanctuary to, provided leadership for, provided intelligence to, and armed terrorist
groups.

“Now if these state sponsors of terrorism have done all of that, do we want to bet the security of our
people here at home that those state sponsors will not go the additional step of providing terrorist groups
with the chemical and biological weapons that are already in the inventory of the state sponsors of
terrorism?”
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/RichardClarke10-8-98.pdf

So I’ll ask my question of you a third time:

So how would you have dealt with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein? David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and Saddam’s FBI interrogator all concluded that Saddam fully intended to develop WMD–including nuclear weapons–in the future. Do you believe we should have waited until he actually had nuclear weapons before we decided to strike?

“I could stretch and say that your claim of ‘preemptive war’ starting with Clinton (which I shot down at #18) was a lie, but I think that was just ignorance on your part.”

That would be a stretch since you have shot nothing here but your mouth. I said Clinton launched a preemptive strike against Iraq, not a preemptive war. Here is Madeleine Albright after Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox:

“We are now dealing with a threat, I think, that is probably harder for some to understand because it is
a threat of the future rather than a present threat or a present act, such as a border crossing, a border
aggression.”
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/Albright-12-17-98.pdf

Dealing with a “threat of the future” is, by definition, entails preemption.

You’re getting to be like Monty Python’s Black Knight. I’ve severed all of your limbs, yet you keep on yakking.

grape,

Don’t forget that after the invasion, when report after report came back from US searchers that there were no WMD found anywhere in Iraq, Cheney was still claiming that they were there – they just hadn’t been found yet.
Then, when the supposed “mobile gas weapons carriers” were found to be hydrogen converters, he denied it, saying that were WMD. He lied through his teeth in order to try to justify the war, as the insurgency was revving up against his “Coalition of the Willing”.

While you’re blathering on and on, why don’t you quit blog-whoring your website? No one is buying the crap you’re selling.

diecash:

“While you’re blathering on and on, why don’t you quit blog-whoring your website? No one is buying the crap you’re selling.”

Translation: I can’t counter Groenhagen’s well-documented posts, so instead I’ll offer a snide remark.

All who care about human dignity , human values and human rights – protected by all faiths and beliefs – pray for the continued success of President Barack Obama ,Sen. Harry Reid ,Rep. Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party in protecting them for all Americans and for all in the world – including against the special interest , secret corporate money or foreign money – and pray for their success in the 2010 and 2012 U.S. elections.
President Obama raised the stakes on that argument at a rally in Maryland , warning that “groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads comes from.” He called the flow of undisclosed money” threat to our democracy.” As President Obama argues : “the alternative is far worse” , “Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie: They’re cronies. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: They’re shills for big business. and They are stealing our democracy “. The President also said about the disputed statements concerning the Pledge to America, the other party campaign manifesto : “The centerpiece of the pledge is a $700 billion tax cut that would only go to the top 2 percent, the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans , Ninety-eight percent of you would not get this tax cut “. The President also chides the other party for wanting to “borrow $700 billion from the Chinese or from the or somebody” to pay for that part of the tax reduction over the next 10 years. The pledge promises to return overall spending on domestic programs to 2008 levels, which would mean cutting roughly $100 billion a year. The President said that the other party would “scrap all the incentives for clean energy projects, including those currently under way.” ” That means, the White House said, that the $100 billion cut would amount to a 20 percent reduction in domestic programs, so it is fair to extrapolate the effects on education, Head Start, college aid and other programs.
On October 7 , the governor of New Jersey, canceled America’s most important current public works project, the long-planned and much-needed second rail tunnel under the Hudson River. The timing of this cancelation ,coming shortly before the November US elections ,is very suspicious ,being against the infrastructure spending contained in President Obama stimulus plan, and is clearly to serve special interests against that of ordinary Americans. In Massachusetts on Oct.16 , President Obama said about its governor Deval Patrick “Because Deval Patrick chose to lead in the toughest of times, this state will lead in the future, and that’s why you’ve got to help him finish the work you all started in 2006,” , “That’s why you need him to help guard the change that you helped deliver in 2006 “. In Ohio on Oct.17,The President said: “The biggest mistake we could make right now, Ohio, is to go back to the very same policies that caused all this hurt in the first place,” , his voice hoarse, exhorted to an enthusiastic crowd of an estimated 35,000 people at Ohio State University in Columbus. “I know it gets discouraging sometimes,” he added. “But don’t let anybody tell you this fight isn’t worth it. Don’t let them tell you you’re not making a difference.”
All pray now that President Barack Obama will very soon –before this November U.S. elections – publicly disclose to all Americans and to the world ,the names of the criminals -in the USA and in the world – who are ultimately responsible for the evil crimes of 9/11 ,their real objectives in this war on Islam using Muslim criminals ,
the two wars that followed in Iraq and Afghanistan – both citing 9/11 as the reason,
the devastation that these wars have caused in these two countries ,
the hundreds or thousands of Americans, Canadians and other NATO heroes killed or wounded ,
the thousands or millions of Muslims and others who were killed, wounded ,displaced……in the world
, the present daily killing of tens or hundreds of innocents in Iraq or Afghanistan to keep the US and NATO fully engaged , to claim that President Obama policies of disengagement are not working ,
the resulting prejudice towards the Islamic faith of some in the USA ,Canada and in the world including that demonstrated by the deliberate killing in Iraq and Afghanistan of civilians who are not even involved in a legitimate opposition , by the American forces ,
and the very serious ,still existing , economic problems that followed these wars in the USA and in the world.
Those criminals of 9/11 are very likely also responsible for the present rig explosion disaster in the USA and for the human, ecological , environmental and economic devastation it caused.
Tharwat Fawzi