(function() { (function(){function c(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){var d=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[d,c];if(void 0==b)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+a)}catch(l){}};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var h=0=b&&(window.jstiming.srt=e-b)}if(a){var d=window.jstiming.load;0=b&&(d.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),d.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt", e),d.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT),d&&0=c&&window.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var f=!1;function g(){f||(f=!0,window.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime"))}window.addEventListener?window.addEventListener("scroll",g,!1):window.attachEvent("onscroll",g); })();

Thursday, May 25, 2006

WHO Lied About WMD's?

As Memorial Day approaches, 51 percent of Americans, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, think the commander in chief "deliberately misled" us about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. "Deliberately misled"? Once again, let's go to the videotape:

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 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."

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "

Clinton, July 2003: " . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean [D], September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country."

Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

Robert Einhorn, Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, March 2002: "How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously -- and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: "There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. . . . 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."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., December 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."

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking minority Intelligence Committee member, October 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."

Any questions?

Larry Elder is an accomplished attorney, radio personality, syndicated columnist, best-selling author and host of daytime television's The Larry Elder Show


Blogger Retired LTC said...

Who lied about WMD? I'll tell you who.

Bush & Co, when they said they knew where the WMD and the delivery systems were. When they concealed any information that contradicted what they wanted us all to believe. When they implied that that the threat was imminent, and that Saddam would provide WMD to al Qaeda terrorists.

Sure, pretty much everybody thought Iraq had WMD. I don't doubt Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice etc thought so too. But that misses the point. Only they had the most current and complete intelligence, and they lied about the details to justify an unnecessary war.


1:35 PM  
Blogger Senor said...

Then where is the proof? Wouldnt it be more likely that they were 'mistaken'? Why must the left insist that to be mistaken is to lie.

If he lied, he had to have known that they werent there and we wouldnt find any. What was his plan then, to look like a liar?

Did Bush use Jedi Mind Tricks on them, which he learned from Opus Dei Monks at the top secret Zionist Spy Academy in the Vatican run by PNAC alien hybrids transported by Black Helicopters owned by Halliburton and flown by WHIG conspirators!!!??

5:28 AM  
Blogger Tom from Philly said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:11 PM  
Blogger Tom from Philly said...

Rumseld, on This Week w/ George Stephanopolous, March 30 '03: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Colin Powell went to the UN and said 'See? They are HERE. We KNOW it.'

If Bush was 'mistaken', then fine. I believe he could have been. But to say we know implies a certain fact, that the weapons are here and here and we will find them there.

And there is still a big difference between having faulty intelligence and going to war on it. If you are going to war, you better be damn sure you are right, not cherry-picking the evidence that supports you.

And you want to see a lie? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm I don't care what you say, using intelligence the CIA says is wrong, that is a lie. 'We know this to be true, it's just the Central Intelligence Agency says this intelliegence is wrong. But what do they know.'

And if he were simply mistaken, it is still a grave offense to lead us into a war based on false assumptions, I think.

12:13 PM  
Blogger Retired LTC said...

I was an intelligence officer for over 20 years, with multiple assignments at the tactical, theater and strategic levels. I understand what commanders, and their civilian counterparts, can know, and how they can know it.

Based on what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice all said, as well as what they didn't say to dispell the impressions left by what they did, I am confident that they purposely intended to deceive the American people. I call that lying.

The Bush administration and their supporters have complained loudly about intelligence community disloyalty. Well, if they are right about that, it's their own doing. Intelligence professionals don't like taking the blame for deception, incompetence and CYA on the part of their civilian leaders.

In the mililtary, if a commander has dissention and morale problems within his unit, he is held responsible. If that dissention and low morale become bad enough that he can no longer command effectively, he is relieved for cause.

With the commander-in-chief, "relief for cause" is called impeachment.

12:24 PM  
Blogger Matt Vella said...

Yet somehow it's Clinton's fault.

10:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home