Democrats Promised WMDs - Where Are They?!

“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
“[WE]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 invigorated 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, December 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 mandated 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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.”

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction…So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

And, this education is free…

“You’re Welcome.”

Obviously, president Clinton suceeded in that worthy goal.
Unless you have something you want to show us, TWG?

Hey, wow, a troll. Apparently conservative but too lazy to actually say what he means, meaning the readers have to do the work to connect the dots themselves.

Ooh, lookie, he isn’t even a paying member of this site.

And this isn’t even original.

Somebody, alert the media.

No. The Democarts did not promise WMDs. The Democrats* promised to take steps to prevent Hussein from getting WMD’s.

It looks as though the actions of the Democrats worked. Do you wish they had failed?

  • (Aside from Sandy Berger who is a neo-con in Dem clothing.)

The preceding sarcasm was directed at the OP, not Squink, obviously.

“We in Congress would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now.” - senator jay rockefeller (d - wv)

Anyone want to discuss this?

John Kerry Certainly doesn’t.

Airblairxxx, you may have missed the memo (since we have not had to deal with the issue recently), but the Moderators prefer that charges of trolling and charges of plagiarism be reported privately to them (using the little exclamation point icon on the upper right of each post) rather than hurling such accusations openly.

Discuss what exactly?

Token White Guy, if you have an actual coherent issue (that would mean that you have an actual viewpoint that can be described in complete sentences and paragraphs), with supporting facts and actual citations to demonstrate that the fact are genuine, feel free to post it.

Posting a list of out-of-context (and chronologically irrelevant) quotations and throwing out a one-liner that Kerry supports terrorism is not even worthy of the IMHO* Forum–or even the Pit, really. It is not a debate; it is a silly rant.

Feel free to post, but please bring meat to the table.

Neither, evidently, do you.

One small problem with this argument. Sure, before the inspections, everyone thought he had WMDs. But then the UN inspectors went to the places where US intelligence (read iran and Chalabi’s disinformation) said there would be WMDs, and found nothing. Hans Blix said that he thought there were WMDs also - until they really started looking.

Now, I’m sure all the people you quote, given this situation, would have delayed the pre-emptive war until they knew for sure Saddam was a threat to somebody outside of Iraq. But not George. The more the case fell apart, the more urgent was the attack. He was paying rent for the battlefield, you know.

It’s just like if a cop, after a suspect everyone thinks is guilty, decides that the right thing to do on finding evidence of innocence is to blow the guy away before anyone finds out, and hope something else turns up.

Hey Token White Guy, this is a serious debate forum and dropping a mass email piece doesn’t qualify. That’s why you got the Howler Treatment. How about some context? Did any of these Democrats assert or imply that these WMD posed a threat the United States? Did any say they might justify the invasion/occupation of Iraq?

Glurge, glurge, glurge. Yawn.

When come back bring original thought.

Well I surely don’t want to walk the narrow edge of a trolling accusation, but it does seem to me that all this is passing strange when it appears on the same day that our President says that (paraphrase) even knowing what he knows to day he would have mounted an invasion of Iraq because (again, paraphrase) (1) Saddam had the capability of getting WMDs, (2) Saddam had contact/connection with terrorists, the world is better off without him. If our President is going to go off with that sort of a disingenuous rationalization then somebody has got to try to divert attention.

That Iraq had the capability to get unconventional weapons is a confession that in fact it did not have them and that the new rationalization is founded on conjecture that it might someday become a threat. The terrorist connection as been debunked and rejected by just about every impartial observer who has looked at it – if we are talking about AlQaida, and not about the publicly announced subsidy for successful Palestinian suicide bombers. That the world is better off with out Saddam is no reason to go to war. The world would be better off without my mother-in-law but I can’t imagine the might of the United States focused or removing a judgmental, querulous and sanctimonious old lady in Des Moines. Our President has now given up on reasons and is depending four square on dubious excuses.

Sometime you can tell something from a user name, some times you can’t. You can’t help but wonder what our new friend’s user name might signify. One might also wonder if he is acquainted with a retired actuary from New Jersey.

That should have been :

I don’t need no stinking “Hi, Opal.”

Why can’t we just mock them? It’s more fun that way.

I heard in passing that GeeDubya had stated that if he knew then what he knows now, he still would have gone ahead with the Iraqi invasion. Haven’t seen anything more on this, kinda thought it would be bigger news than it seems to be. I guess that must be because I think he’d have to be out of his tiny friggin’ mind to say anything so stupid.

Unless, of course, following the OP’s lead, he intends to claim he was misled by those dastardly Dems.

There was an argument presented?

I love this argument. I have the capability of shtupping JLo, but Ben or whoever it is these days is probably not too worried. :smiley: