The Conservative Civil War On Iraq Policy
The Conservative Civil War On Iraq Policy
Retreating to the friendly confines of the Weekly Standard magazine neoconservatives have reignited a conservative civil war over foreign policy.
While the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton appears to have backed key elements of a progressive strategic redeployment plan put forth by the Center for American Progress more than a year ago, neoconservatives — reflecting their growing irrelevance and detachment from reality — are still insisting that the U.S. send more troops to Iraq and continue to oppose dialogue with Iraq’s neighbors.
The writers at the Weekly Standard have focused their attacks on the reemergence of Bush 41 “realist” foreign policy conservatives. In a clear effort to knee-cap the Baker-Hamilton report before it comes out, the Weekly Standard has a slew of articles attacking the Iraq Study Group, James Baker, and conservative “realists” like Robert Gates. Here is a sampling of some of the articles currently on the magazine’s website:
– “A Perfect Failure” by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “At home and abroad, people have been led to believe that Jim Baker and not the president was going to call the shots in Iraq form now on. Happily, that is not the case.”
– “Surge and Run” by Thomas Donnelly, “The ‘adults’ of the Bush 41 administration were supposed to talk Bush 43 off the ledge…but the main recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton…has little value outside Washington, and none in Baghdad or the region…the insurgents have nearly won the war inside the Beltway.”
– “Surrender as ‘Realism’” by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “realism has come to be a kind of code word for surrendering”
– “From Metternich to Jim Baker” by Ralph Peters, “Baker is the dean emeritus of a reactionary school of diplomats… It was the “realist” elevation of stability above all other strategic factors…gave us not only the radical regime in Iran, but, ultimately, al Qaeda and 9/11.”
– Max Bergmann
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Kristol’s gang at the Weekly Standard are starting to sound downright psychotic.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:15 pmExcellent. Feeding frenzy…
December 5th, 2006 at 10:21 pmAre there so few people willing to write for the Weekly Standard that the Kagan/Kristol comedy act has to supply *two* articles in a single issue?
December 5th, 2006 at 10:22 pmOK, so someone help me out. I caught Billy Kristol on some show maybe 2 months ago (maybe Fox – must have been in an airport, because I usually let Crooks and Liars and Media Matters watch Fox for me). And he was being nailed by someone for continuing to be unequivocably backing the war.
Now at one point, he was asked if he thought it (the American loss of life) was worth it. And his reponse started out to be something like “Well don’t you think America can spare some more sons and daughters..” but then he caught himself and restated the end of his sentence.
Anyone know where that transcript is? A link?
December 5th, 2006 at 10:24 pmI’m going to repeat my previous post here as I had no idea this topic was in-line. With the information from the whitepaper referenced below, we can simply dismiss this neo-con kneecapping operation and get on with the progressive resolution of the Middle East conflict.
The regulars here know that I have strongly criticized Gates, and the Iraq Study Group as well. However, given the real politik of the immensely powerful Zionist lobbies, and the fact that Democrats are notoriously weak to these influences (Pelosi more than most), things may not be as bad as they seem. Today, I stumbled across a brilliant whitepaper by James Petras which clarifies the various forces that will be playing out with respect to US military and diplomatic policies in the Middle East. I suggest you take a look at it as we may very well have a chance to step beyond the Fraud of Armageddon. I’d really hate to miss that.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:32 pmWhat’s the Weekly Standard’s subscibership like? Can’t be a whole hell of a lot of folks, can it?
December 5th, 2006 at 10:33 pmLMFAO, I’m looking at the second article in the TOC and I see these jackasses are still banging away on Webb. He must scare the bejeebus out of these morons to get this much attention. You go Webb!!!
December 5th, 2006 at 10:44 pmWhat’s the Weekly Standard’s subscibership like? Can’t be a whole hell of a lot of folks, can it?
Comment by ForTruth
Interesting. The Weekly Standards does not list its subscription number with the Magazine Audit Bureau.
Lack of confidence, I would think…or readers…
December 5th, 2006 at 10:45 pmterry the turtle – ever try this site?
News Hounds
December 5th, 2006 at 10:46 pmWe watch FOX so you don’t have to.
http://www.newshounds.us/
Some of the women here won’t like this but…what a bunch of pussies.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:54 pmThe neocons are a pathetic bunch. Who reads their crap except other equally insane persons.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:56 pmComment by Zooey
Thanks for the info on that, very interesting.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:58 pmNeocons in denial.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:01 pmNot a pretty sight.
Sorry for the double posting (#s 6 and 12)….It took forever for the first posting to appear. Wasn’t sure it had gone through.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:01 pmIs Bush prolonging the war to save HIS butt
So far:
Yes
87% 183 votes
No
12% 27 votes
Place your vote (and read the brief commentary if you care):
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/4/221217/884
December 5th, 2006 at 11:03 pmThanks for the info on that, very interesting.
Comment by ForTruth
De nada
December 5th, 2006 at 11:04 pmWasn’t sure it had gone through.
Comment by Exley
Again with the lack of confidence. Geez…
December 5th, 2006 at 11:10 pmWhat planet are these people from? Have they been right about anything?
t-mac
December 5th, 2006 at 11:15 pmO Zooey, that was vicious. I’m so proud ta know ya.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:17 pmI’m so proud ta know ya.
Comment by stonehinge
I’ve been trying to think of the best meat hat for Exley. Help me out?
December 5th, 2006 at 11:19 pmWell, I’d go with the Canadian. I’m thinking we could stuff it with the sausages if it gets to rowdy.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:22 pmWell, I’d go with the Canadian. I’m thinking we could stuff it with the sausages if it gets to rowdy.
Comment by stonehinge
Well…maybe then his dog would play with him. :)
December 5th, 2006 at 11:26 pmkaty – thanks you helped with that one. This is the incident. Pity there is no transcript:
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/09/27/neoconservative_fox_guest_says_bush_is_doing_good_job_smith_counters.php
December 5th, 2006 at 11:27 pmstonehinge that first link is an excellent read…
December 5th, 2006 at 11:30 pmWell, if that’s what you want, maybe the Canadian wouldn’t be the best. I wouldn’t mind choking Exley, but I’d really hate for the dog to founder on those links. Maybe the Base-bull would be better. I’d hate to get in a tussle with the SPCA.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:35 pmYes, Terry, I agree. I hope that a lot of people will read it as the lobbies will have less power with their operations up in the light of day.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:37 pmMaybe the Base-bull would be better. I’d hate to get in a tussle with the SPCA.
Comment by stonehinge
You are so right, stonehinge. I’ll change my order.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:38 pmLOL James Baker is no moderate on Iraq, nor is he a savior seeking to pull troops out of that fiasco, but he is using smoke and mirrors to make even DC Democrats believe in his baloney! Baker serves the Bush family and his agenda is to befuddle the situation in Iraq to keep the US troops there for the rest of Bush Junior’s term in office, so that means 2 more years of death and destruction!
December 5th, 2006 at 11:48 pmi missed something… had to finish watching daily show and the beginning of colbert – VERY funny, btw – but what’s this about? did his posts get deleted?
and terry the turtle – glad that site helped… didn’t mean to post and run but i was checking here during commercial breaks…
i love the motto: “we watch fox so you don’t have to” … heh…
great – i missed colbert last night… this is the first i’ve seen the nativity scene he has set up around the interview table… what a hoot!
December 5th, 2006 at 11:55 pm…
stonehinge – and yet there is no debate at all about whether or not unequivocal backing for Israel is in the US interests at all. When was the last time you saw any such discussion on a US TV station? How about on a ThinkProgress thread? Same as the HABEAS CORPUS MCA bill…. deep sixed – they don’t wnat you talking about it. You might find an anti-semite label slapped on you so fast, you’ll think you are David Duke.
Wonder if this post will get through..
December 6th, 2006 at 12:00 amooh it went. wonder if it stays…
December 6th, 2006 at 12:05 amJay, I agree with everything you have said…but…there are some over-riding factors that we must consider. If you have time, take a look at the article that is linked in #5. If progressives can push this issue just right, we have a chance to win a bigger prize in the ME. On the other hand, if we let the Zionists control, and these weasel neo-cons are only one part of that equation, then all bets are off.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:09 amIt got through Terry. And I’m hanging around to see that some people actually read the Petras paper. You know, a lot of people read this blog even though they don’t comment. If 1000 people read this article, it can change everything. Just be careful how you go with the language and it’ll get through.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:15 amSame as the HABEAS CORPUS MCA bill…. deep sixed – they don’t wnat you talking about it. —- TerrytheTurtle
Yeah, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, gutted Posse Comitatus. And give Bush the authority to use US troops against US civillians.
That with the death of Habeus Corpus means we live in dangerous times.
That has to be fixed ( repealed ) and they had better not keep ignoring it.
Do they not realize the death blows to our democracy have already been struck By the rubber stamp congress and BushCo??
December 6th, 2006 at 12:23 amWayne, be sure to read the article in #5. If it hits you like it hit me, push it out any way you can.
I hate to be such a proselytizer, but somebody gotta do it.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:31 amTerry, Wayne is a great example of how we have to fight this war. Nobody, and I mean nobody, knew what was in the MCA. Yet, Wayne read the bill, and discussed it here in this very forum, and from that, Ted Rall picked it up. When it hit on Yahoo, it made number one on the “most emailed” list. Get the picture?
December 6th, 2006 at 12:41 amI suspected that there was gonna be a lotta in-fighting amonst the Conservatives after we stomped them on Nov 7th, but still, this does all seem a little fishy for me though. I personally believe this is nothing but a blatent attempt by the Reich-Wing to sow the seeds of disinformation so as to help the broader Conservative movement distance themselves from the Neo-Cons. That’s right! It has to be a trick. The Reich-Wing is trying to save Conservatism from being relegated to history’s dustben. Those sneaky weasals….
December 6th, 2006 at 1:23 amFrom the 5 myths about the midterm elections, something the Democrats had better remember.
MYTH: The losses Republicans sufferend this election were no different than what you usually see in a President’s sixth year in office.
REALITY: Redistricting minimized what might have been a truly historic shellacking.
MYTH: The election was all about the war.
REALITY: It’s the dishonesty, stupid.
( Corruption was the number 1 issue at the exit polls, followed by Iraq in a close 2nd )
MYTH: Republicans lost their base.
REALITY: The base turned out, they just got beat.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:40 amcatchy “propaganda yellow”cover with bold, black “in your face” wording.
weekly standard have you no shame?
December 6th, 2006 at 3:16 amPersonally, I understand all the criticism about the realists. Reality ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. That’s why folks drink and take drugs. Which is clearly what they must be doin’ over there at the magazine.
Pass the doobie on the left hand side, Kristol!
December 6th, 2006 at 3:49 amMom and GWB
Barbara: OK, we all have these terrible stories to get over, and you—
George: It’s not true. Some have great stories, pretty stories that take place at lakes with boats and friends and noodle salad. Just no one in this family
Barbara: But, a lot of people, that’s their story. Good times, noodle salad. What makes it so hard is not that you had it bad, but that you’re that pissed that so many others had it good.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:58 amNetwork Executive: “For God’s sake, Chris! The whole world is watching. We can’t let him die in front of a live audience!”
December 6th, 2006 at 4:47 amLies that led us to war
The Downing Street Memo and other documents prove that Bush knew there were no WMD before the invasion of Iraq. Bush’s WMD statements, in chronological order, were:
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
– United Nations Address, September 12, 2002
“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.”
“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”
– Radio Address, October 5, 2002
“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
“We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”
“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.”
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
– Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, October 7, 2002
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
December 6th, 2006 at 4:48 am– State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
– Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003
While we’re on the subject of the reception Iraq strategy proposals have received by the press…. care to mention any reviews of yours Thinkprogress ?
So “surge” tactics, as a measure to stem sectarian killings in major population areas, have one obvious drawback as you point out. Anyone you know of managed to stop laughing long enough to post a critical review of your “let the navy monitor the civil conflict from over the horizon” plan for stemming sectarian violence ?
Nobody ?
This is like an abstinance-only campaigner complaining about scientific studies critical of African AIDS programs. Looks fine until you recall you’ve floated the most laughable fantasy-based proposal yet which makes stay-the-course look well thought out and downright humanitarian.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:50 amhttp://prisonplanet.com/video/171106beating.wmv
This Is Why The Iraqis Hate Us
Another beating snuff video shames coalition of the killing, You Tube censors it
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, November 17, 2006
British troops punch, beat and kick pleading Iraqi children as a sadistic comrade films the brutal scenes of torture, laughing, screaming, growling and frothing like a serial killer filming a snuff movie. This is why the Iraqis hate us.
Iraqi children throw rocks as they flee from running British troops, are grabbed, brought inside a gate and beaten half to death. Watch the video below. The censorship spies at You Tube rejected it 2 minutes after upload so I re-named it “Fluffy Happy Poodles In Heaven,” to try and bypass their keyword filters and it was still rejected. I even renamed the actual ‘wmv’ filename but it was still blocked for “terms of use violation.” I finally managed to get it posted on Google Video. If it disappears again, here’s the Windows Media link on our server.
November 19th: Google removed the video too! So here’s an old copy the censors at You Tube missed.
—————————————
I picked up the video and the link for the video.It`s windows format.Download it while it lives.
Probably won`t be around too long.Pass it around.
This guy keeps getting his video censored,so please share with all you know.
slipknot
December 6th, 2006 at 5:40 amYou mean like the world’s media did back in February ?
December 6th, 2006 at 7:04 amThis is neither news, “another video” nor a “snuff film”.
PrisonPlanet deals in fiction. Stop treating it as though it matters.
The NeoCults can kneecap all they want, but it won’t make any difference. Even observing the US media from Australia, it’s clear that the MSM no longer regard the Weekly Standard as anything more than extended ‘Letters To The Editor’ retread.
Who reads this rag anyway?
It costs Rupert Murdoch millions a year, and it has served its purpose for him. He is clearly moving away from the neocons and the hardcore conservatives on all the key issues. He has no choice. The tide has turned and most of his newspapers in England, Australia and the US are taking a beating.
You can expect there to be talk of the Weekly Standard moving to a monthly format shortly after Hilary Clinton is elected president.
We’ve got some coverage of Baker and the Iraq Study Group report over at the Last Days Of President George W. Bush if you’re interested.
Go here for Last Days Of President Bush
We’ve had someone begin posting in comments under W. Obviously it ain’t the real W, but it’s a little freaky how much it sounds like him.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:28 amI think US should take the diplomatic route of deploying a UN peace keeping force comprised of all member nations contributions so more US marines don’t get killed and pulblic outcry against Iraq Invasion reduces and the Iraqi resurgent factions are also pacified.
http://www.tekno-world.blogspot.com
December 6th, 2006 at 7:39 amI think that US should take a conservative approach and involve a UN peace keeping force to reduce the International rhetoric against Iraq action and also reduce pressure at home and Iraq.
http://www.tekno-world.blogspot.com
December 6th, 2006 at 7:41 amThe Neocons played their game for sometime now…it lead to one thing ..a disaster. The cost of their game is so high and was paid in blood and sweat of the American people…not the NEOCONS..so let them leave this game to some other people to take charge; people who put US interests first.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:23 amexclusive video:
President Bush’s response to the Iraq Study Group
December 6th, 2006 at 9:25 amPoor Bill Kristol and company. They still promote grandiosity and unilateralism…
Didn’t the neo-conservatives initially despise the grand projects of the 60’s (the Great Society) and “liberal” policies?
Here they are still trying to prop their grand engineeing of Democracy in Iraq (as if it could be engineered as opposed to democracy by free will).
What a bunch of loony hypocrites.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:26 am“A Perfect Failure†by Robert Kagan and William Kristol.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:31 amWell done, guys!
I’m not sure you’re perfect, but you certainly are failures.
Bill Kristol get so hot & bothered by the thought of bombing Iran he has to take a break & go shower.
Just watch him start to sweat when that topic comes up.
Rapture, indeed!
Calling these guys shitheads gives feces a bad name.
You mean like the world’s media did back in February ?
This is neither news, “another video†nor a “snuff filmâ€.
PrisonPlanet deals in fiction. Stop treating it as though it matters.
guess i need to update my browser then huh.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:54 amRealist is the latest buzz word (misrepresentation) from the neo-cons as if the Democratic Party was calling on the advice of Henry Kissinger. Containment, the policy that was used effectively by the US against the USSR is the policy of choice of Gore and other Democrats. The goal is to prevent a regional conflagration. A realist policy is relativistic, Iran for example has it’s way of life which is good for Iran and the US has its way of life which is good for the US. Containment on the other hand recognizes a disaster and tries to contain that disaster. Containmnent waits for the opposing nation to implode as did the USSR. The waiting is very important. A realist position is amoral. Containment recognizes moral standards. Containment rests on the basis that the opposing countries have internal weaknesses which will modify or topple those governments. In the meantime disaster has to be contained.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:24 amLittle rich boy Willy Kristol smiles his teeny smug grin – I’m a happy friendly guy – but whenever Willy smiles some one dies.
I detest the slimy little creep – been known to slap his silly face when it shows up on TV.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:33 amPowkat, I don’t think Kristol cares about Jews or Israel or Democracy or the national interests of the United States. The war is an excuse to attack liberalism. A stupendous failure in Iraq, disaster for Israel a disaster for the US which serves to gather the wagons of the neo-cons and permits future attacks on liberalism is quite acceptable to Kristol.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:06 pmThe media and Democrats have gone out of their way to define Iraq as a failure. Fact is we won in the battle with Iraq. Now we are fighting a war on terror.
“Mission Accomplished”
What we have here right now is a humanitarian effort for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The fact is being hidden that the other oil producing countries are strategically opposed to Iraqi competition on the oil market as a democracy. You have to look at motive them simply consider that a democratic Iraq is a threat to the current status quo. And don’t give this bologna about Iran being a democracy either.
Once you have established that simple fact it becomes obvious considering that Iran and Syria are assisting the Mahidi army that they are indeed on the side of evil.
The problem is the Democrats have been given total freedom to play armchair quarter back with impunity by the media. They are the spoilers in the War against Terrorism” once again look at who benefits and you have motive. The problem is with this strategy we all loose. I disagree with Bush caving in to their game in hopes that he will gain an ally in the war instead they will only take the knife that they have imbedded into Bush’s back and twist and slash for better effect.
The only way to level the playing field is if the media properly informs the public a properly informed public will do the right thing. This idea of posturing for a Vietnam scenario in order to wreak the benefit of preaching a false story of failure instead of the real story of betrayal does no one any good.
Consider this if we only went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Our troops get hit with WMD’s Shall I remind you of the 50 or so quotes by high level Democrats touting the thread that Saddam poses to National security? These going back into the 90’s? If it had happened we would sure be hearing about how Bush screwed up by not covering our flank side and addressing the Iraq problem.
When the world can see that Iraq is a problem that deserves to be looked at as a humanitarian issue and sees the true picture of what the problem is. Instead of a Bush vs. the world and the Democrats on the side of the world issue as it has been framed. There never will be a good ending to this story.
December 6th, 2006 at 5:50 pmJoeslogic, taking actions that result in the killing of 500,000 people and the bringing of Sadr et al. to power lacks humanity The time when Bush can talk the talk but not walk the walk is over.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:08 pmSaddam killed more than your multiplied over exagerated figures. Bill
re: Lies that led us to war
Quote:
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US 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.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 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.â€
Quote:
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.â€
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 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.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Quote:
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.â€
Quote:
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a 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, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.â€
Quote:
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 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, 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.â€
Quote:
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
“There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.â€
Quote:
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. 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.â€
Quote:
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 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.â€
Quote:
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.â€
Quote:
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.â€
Quote:
Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.â€
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.â€
Quote:
Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.â€
Quote:
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.â€
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.â€
Quote:
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.â€
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.â€
Quote:
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.â€
Quote:
Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 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.â€
Quote:
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…â€
Thank God for people like Rush Limbaugh to archive these things. Facts are such a drag for liberals they would rather ignore them and pretend they never happened.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:21 pm