Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Ruben <ruben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 15:48:06 -0400
On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:29:39 -0400, Ruben wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 19:17:40 +0000, Phil wrote:
if you don't mess with us, we'll attack you anyway.
Well, only stupid people got that message. The rest got a message that
if they threaten to attack us, they're lible to be attacked.
Your really don't need me to post all the quotes from Hussein relating
to world domination and attacking the US? Just say the world and I'll
pull it out of my resources section on my website.
Your posts are getting increasingly irrational as this thread goes on.
Ruben
Oh and as for the "truth" that we knew he had no weapons and that sactions
should have continued, evidently it wasn't shared by the US Government as
early as 1998
Words of Mass Destruction
Claim: Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about
Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Status: True.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2003]
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"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.
"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.
"There is no doubt that . 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 redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"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 the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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.
"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.
"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 alway
s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"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
"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.
"[W]ithout 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 has 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.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S
AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct
reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass
destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is
provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the
course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly
against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover,
several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes
unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert
Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's
ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we've tried to
provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which
the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from
which they were derived wherever possible.
In February 1998, politicians debated the Clinton administration's plans
to launch air attacks against Iraq in an effort to coerce Saddam Hussein
into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. As the Washington Post
noted at the time: Foreign leaders and diplomats may be urging restraint
on the Clinton administration in the showdown with Iraq, but a growing
chorus at home is calling for stronger measures than the air attacks
currently being planned, with the objective of bringing down President
Saddam Hussein.
Prominent members of the foreign policy establishment and some leading
members of Congress say they are convinced that air attacks aimed at
coercing the Iraqis into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors would
not succeed, and would result in too narrow a victory even if they did.
Instead, they argue, the United States should go beyond the objective of
curtailing Iraqi weapons programs and adopt a far-reaching strategy aimed
at replacing the Baghdad regime. Although they are far from consensus on
what that strategy should be, a few openly advocate the possible use of
U.S. ground forces, a much greater commitment than the options being
pursued by the administration.
Many supporters of a more forceful strategy are conservative Republicans
and longtime defense hard-liners, such as Senate Majority Leader Trent
Lott (R-Miss.) and former Pentagon official Richard L. Armitage. But they
also include former representative Stephen J. Solarz (N.Y.), a liberal
Democrat who with former Pentagon official Richard Perle is circulating a
letter in Congress and foreign policy circles seeking bipartisan support
for a more ambitious policy.
In addition to a crushing bombing campaign or the possibility of ground
troops, some advocates of tougher measures are suggesting seeking Iraq's
expulsion from the United Nations, indicting Saddam Hussein as a war
criminal, or blockading the port of Basra to halt illicit oil exports —
an action that would infuriate Iran, which shares the Shatt al Arab
waterway with Iraq.
Such moves, if made unilaterally, would almost certainly draw the ire of
most of the United States's U.N. partners and frame the crisis even more
starkly as a conflict between Washington and Baghdad. But public opinion
polls may indicate support for such a route. A Los Angeles Times poll
published on Monday showed that by 68 percent to 24 percent, Americans
favor airstrikes provided they are designed to remove Saddam Hussein from
power, not just force him to accept the commands of the U.N. Security
Council.1 That same article also reported a statement made by President
Clinton the previous day (4 February 1998): Yesterday, Clinton reiterated
that he would prefer a "diplomatic solution" to the standoff with Iraq but
added, "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." Clinton met with Secretary of State Madeleine K.
Albright, just back from a trip to Europe and several Arab countries to
outline the U.S. position, and is to discuss Iraq with British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, who arrived in Washington yesterday.1 On 17 February
1998, President Clinton delivered a speech at the Pentagon. Excerpts from
that speech include the following comments: The UNSCOM inspectors believe
that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a
small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
production program and build many, many more weapons.
Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against
that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our
preference for a diplomatic solution . . .
But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the
remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear,
immutable, reasonable, simple standard.
Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites
anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the
integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.
Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he
agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times
since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be
necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through
more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for
the consequences.
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will.
He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an
arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I
think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time
believes that, too. . . .
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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten
his neighbors.
I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our
military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital
strategic interests.2 On 18 February 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright appeared along with Defense Secretary William Cohen and White
House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger at an internationally
televised "town meeting" at Ohio State University. Protesters shouted from
the stands throughout the meeting, and Secretary Albright attempted to
quiet them by inviting some of them down to the floor to pose questions to
her directly. As the Columbus Dispatch reported: Few actually got the
opportunity, but one — Jon Strange, a substitute teacher in Columbus —
eventually took the microphone.
He repeatedly challenged Albright on whether Clinton policy is consistent
or fair — attacking Saddam while acting favorably to American allies
charged with atrocities against their own people, such as Indonesia and
Turkey.
Albright said the United States had expressed its concerns in all of the
occasions Strange mentioned. "What we ought to be thinking about is how to
deal with Saddam Hussein," she added.
"You're not answering my question, Madam Albright!" Strange shouted,
causing the secretary to momentarily back from the lectern.
At that point, Woodruff followed his question by asking why Iraq was
branded an outlaw nation for manufacturing chemical and biological weapons
that other nations also possess.
"It is a question of whether there is a proclivity to use them," Albright
said. "Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender."
Many who attended yesterday's town meeting, while supportive of the
nation's position on Iraq, said they are uncertain whether a military
attack is the proper response.
Before the forum, Rob Aiken, a North Side resident and student at Ohio
State, said he wanted to know what other options had been considered.
"I don't think killing a lot of folks will change a regime," he said.
Leandra Kennedy, a political science major from Philadelphia, said her
biggest concern is that an attack has not received congressional approval.
"Saddam needs to comply," she said. "But I'm not sure about the way we're
going about it, not taking into consideration how it will affect the
international community in the long run."
Calling Saddam a bully who has terrorized his Middle East neighbors and
tortured his own people, the officials said the administration's aim is to
reduce his capacity to manufacture and deliver weapons of mass
destruction.
"I am absolutely convinced that we could accomplish our mission," Berger
said.
"The risks that the leader of a rogue state can use biological or chemical
weapons on us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face,"
Albright said.3 During that same meeting National Security Adviser Sandy
Berger also spoke about how to make Saddam Hussein comply with United
Nations weapons inspectors: Berger won strong applause when he insisted
Washington is still hoping for a peaceful way to persuade Saddam to give
United Nations inspectors free access to suspected weapons sites. But
Berger re-used a warning delivered Tuesday by President Bill Clinton: "The
only answer to aggression and outlaw behaviour is firmness. . . He
(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."4 On 6 October 1998, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, addressed that committee at
a hearing on the subject of worldwide threats facing the U.S. His comments
on Iraq included mention of a letter to President Clinton which he and
other senators were circulating: As the Chairman has indicated, the
situation in Iraq also poses a threat to international peace and security.
Once again, Saddam Hussein has halted cooperation with the United Nations
Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Without
intrusive inspections, we will not be able to ensure that Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction programs are destroyed in accordance with U.N.
Security Council resolutions. Without those inspections, the Iraqi people
will continue to suffer as a result of international economic sanctions.
And that is why, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Hutchison, I
am circulating among our Senate colleagues a letter to President Clinton,
urging him, in consultation with Congress, consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take effective actions, including if
appropriate, the use of air strikes, to respond to the Iraqi threat.
(President Clinton did undertake the action urged in this statement a few
months later by ordering the aforementioned Operation Desert Fox
airstrikes.)
On 16 December 1998, Nancy Pelosi, a Congressional representative from
California and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a
statement concerning a U.S.-led military strike against Iraq: 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.
The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate
weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to
diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have
suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same
citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the
humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the
innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops
participating in the current action.
I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is,
unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam
Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's
requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support
the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly
and that the international community can find a lasting solution through
diplomatic means. (In this statement Rep. Pelosi was not urging that
action be taken against Iraq in order to destroy its WMD technology; she
was expressing support for attacks that had already begun with that
purpose as their stated objective.)
On 10 November 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright addressed
another open meeting, this one held at the Chicago Hilton and Towers.
Challenged to defend the Clinton administration's support of an economic
and trade embargo against Iraq, Secretary Albright responded: If you
remember in 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded another country, he plagued it,
he set fire to it, and he decided that he could control the region. Before
that, he had gassed his own people.
Saddam Hussein had been acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We carried
out, with the help of an alliance, a war in which we put Saddam Hussein
back into his box. The United Nations voted on a set of resolutions which
demanded Saddam Hussein live up to his obligations and get rid of weapons
of mass destruction.
The United Nations Security Council imposed a set of sanctions on Saddam
Hussein until he did that. It also established an organization that is set
up to monitor whether Hussein had gotten rid of his weapons of mass
destruction.
There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that
Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has
chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and
palaces for his cronies. In December 2001, nine members of Congress (a
group which included both Democrats and Republicans) wrote a letter to
President Bush urging him to step up support for the internal Iraqi
opposition seeking to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Included in that
letter was the following paragraph: 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. Unless the version reproduced on the
Department of State's web site is in error, however, Senator Bob Graham of
Florida was not one of the signatories to that letter.
On 19 September 2002, Senator Carl Levin — by then Chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee — addressed a committee hearing on U.S.
policy on Iraq. His introductory remarks included the following: The Armed
Services Committee meets this afternoon to continue our hearings on U.S.
policy toward Iraq. The purpose of these hearings is to give the
Administration an opportunity to present its position on Iraq, and to
allow this Committee to examine the Administration's proposal with
Administration witnesses and experts outside of the government.
We welcome Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers to the Committee. Next week the
Committee will hear from former senior military commanders on Monday and
from former national security officials on Wednesday.
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. On 23 September 2002, former
Vice-President Al Gore addressed the Commonwealth Club of California in
San Francisco on the subject of Iraq and the war on terrorism. Among the
comments he offered there were the following: Moreover, if we quickly
succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of
Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned
Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the
resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United
States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored
secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with
terrorist groups. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan — with
no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous
borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed
supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of
terrorist groups.
If we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we
could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was
asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would
be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, "That's for the Iraqis to come
together and decide."
[ . . .]
What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin
a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to
America’s prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to
America’s prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began
providing to the world 57 years ago, right here in this city by the bay.
[ . . .]
Nevertheless, 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.
Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking
actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that
there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however,
that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we
decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of
international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN
resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the
existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. On
27 September 2002, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts delivered a
speech to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. An
excerpt from that speech includes the following statements: We have known
for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of
mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned
about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria
and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over
the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the
United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.
In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March,
CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a
proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein — and I quote — "is
determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass
destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War."
That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped
short of war. In October 2002, as the U.S. Senate debated Joint Resolution
46 authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force against
Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia delivered remarks regarding his
belief that the "rush to war" was "ignoring the U.S. Constitution" and
that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. Among his
remarks were the following statements: The Senate is rushing to vote on
whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war
being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is
Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general
election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of
Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election
campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not
yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet
Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now,
to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade
Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military
campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't
we getting ahead of ourselves?
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have
gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt
compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons
of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we
are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before
the elections. Why the rush?
Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at
the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We
know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know
it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt
with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it — we
have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in
hiding.
So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has
been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11
attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11.
We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United
States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent
threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact
that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean
that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an
attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of
Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would
preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for
a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue. During that same
debate, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts also made a speech from the
Senate floor, which included the following statements: When I vote to give
the President of the United States the authority to use force, if
necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a
grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf
region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold
Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now
committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address
this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies
around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason
and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we
cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in
joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the
commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work
with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting
out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our
allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he
fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so
with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a
grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country
which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our
immediate national security needs.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how
we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert
with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so
otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building
coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done.
If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region,
breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American
zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the
day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will
support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust
those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support
a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the
multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte
blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some
kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right
to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its
self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with
Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave
because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high
probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But
it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we
have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest
that he is about to launch an attack.
The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the
international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the
doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution
an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new
strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution
clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq,
and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States
against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council
resolutions.
The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the
President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia also delivered a floor
speech on the Iraq resolution: 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.
When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels
will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well
as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our
existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.
Americans will return to a situation like that we faced in the Cold War,
waking each morning knowing we are at risk from nuclear blackmail by a
dictatorship that has declared itself to be our enemy. Only, back then,
our communist foes were a rational and predictable bureaucracy; this time,
our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual,
a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate
international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he feels it serves
his purposes to do so.
The global community — in the form of the United Nations — has
declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening
prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has
been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat
now, before it is too late.
But this isn’t just a future threat. 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.
And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which
have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those
weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our
citizens. I fear that greatly.
We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass
destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us.
But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has
been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people —
and he has ill-will toward America.
I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a
significant risk. During the simultaneous debate on the Iraq resolution in
the House of Representatives, Congressman Henry Waxman of California
issued a statement on a possible war with Iraq: 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.
And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last UN
weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of
Saddam’s willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime.
What Saddam has done in the interim is not known for certain - but there
is every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime Minister of
Britain, to President Bush’s speech at the United Nations, that Saddam
has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons stocks, and that
he is determined to obtain the means necessary to produce nuclear weapons.
He has ballistic missiles, and more are on order. He traffics with other
evil people in this world, intent on harming the United States, Israel,
other nations in the Middle East, and our friends across the globe.
Senator Hillary Clinton of New York also spoke on the issue of the Iraq
resolution: 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.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do
about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can
muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not
produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a
positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a
secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move
the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because
it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds
in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was
using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would
give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did
not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a
million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his
aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we
created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to
his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a
precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has
talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has
mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if
China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot
be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. Making a speech
at Georgetown University on 23 January 2003, during the build-up to the
war with Iraq, Senator John Kerry said: Second, without question, we need
to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He
miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response
to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting
oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel
and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own
military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his
misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has
spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs
and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,
but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf
War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity
to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately
after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies.
When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a
coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other
Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves
rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly
arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in
effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never
would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most
of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of
Kuwait a decade ago.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now
affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious
consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on
Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make
clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to
possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to
do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the
necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have
said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go
to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we
have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies
available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people,
absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action. Last
updated: 16 October 2007
The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2008 by snopes.com. This material
may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo
are registered service marks of snopes.com.
Sources Sources:
4. Kenna, Kathleen. "Anti-Iraq Show Goes on the Road in America."
The Toronto Star. 19 February 1998 (p. A16).
1. Lippmann, Thomas W. "In U.S., Calls Grow Louder for Saddam
Hussein's Removal."
The Washington Post. 5 February 1998 (p. A1).
3. Powers, Scott and Lornet Turnbull. "Town Meeting Turbulent."
The Columbus Dispatch. 19 February 1998 (p. A2).
Priest, Dana and Bradley Graham. "Airstrikes Took a Toll on Saddam,
U.S. Says."
The Washington Post. 9 January 1999 (p. A14).
2. The Washington Post. "This Is Not a Time Free from Peril."
18 February 1998 (p. A14).
--
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."
"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."
© Copyright for the Digital Millennium
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Phil
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- References:
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Ruben
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Ruben
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Ruben
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Phil
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Ruben
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Phil
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Ruben
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Phil
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Ruben
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Phil
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Ruben
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: The Other Bob
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Ruben
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Phil
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- From: Ruben
- Re: Time for a new dentist!
- Prev by Date: Help is coming from Omar
- Next by Date: Wow, Keith rips Carter
- Previous by thread: Re: Time for a new dentist!
- Next by thread: Re: Time for a new dentist!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
