“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors”
- President William Jefferson Clinton 12/16/98
This Iraq/WMD talk which is still upsetting the NY Times, began in 1998.
In 1998, Bill Clinton said we had intelligence that showed Iraq was making WMD and becoming a threat to the world.
“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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Maddie Albright agreed:
“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.”
–Sec. of State Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Tom Daschle and lots of other Democrats completely agreed.
“[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:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
Sandy “Pants” Berger agreed:
“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
Nancy Pelosi agreed: “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
Okay…I’m sure there are more quotes out there, but that’s a start. It’s 1998. We have The American President talking Iraq and WMD, and also, outlining a policy of regime change in Iraq.
Sen. Jon Kyl, March 12, 2004
The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not left over from the first Bush administration, but, rather, unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.
Not two months after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation explaining his decision to order air strikes against Iraqi military targets. He discussed the potential long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, stating,
“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”
The words, again, of President Clinton. It is hard to think of any Bush administration words more forceful, unqualified or expressive of the grave and growing danger posed by the Iraqi regime. Yet, I’ve heard no criticism of Clinton administration misuse of intelligence.
How can one administration’s use of intelligence be reasonable and credible, but another administration’s use of the same intelligence be an unreasonable lie?
In 1998, the US was certain that Saddam Hussein was acquiring and developing WMD, and that he posed a credible threat. The president said it. His party said it. The opposition party agreed. The press said it. England said it. Israel said it. France said it. China and Russia said it. EVERYONE said it. EVERYONE accepted it. These were the intelligence reports, and everyone found them believable.
No one acted on them, but no one declared they were false, either. While some cynics suggested that the American President’s focus on the WMD was some “dog wagging” to distract attention from an uncomfortable scandal, no one seriously entertained a notion that Saddam Hussein did NOT have WMD. Everyone believed it to be true. Or at least said they believed it.
In 2001, a new president took office, and was party to the same intelligence information as his predecessor. And he believed that information. And when terror struck his country, he decided that the best way to counter terrorism born in the Middle East would be to, finally, change the Middle East.
He had all this intelligence. He believed it. Everyone he showed it to, believed it.
“The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House…”
- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003
So the new president decided it was time to act. He talked to the UN about it. He talked to Congress about it. He laid out numerous reasons why the US policy of regime change should finally be acted upon. Then he acted upon it… and he expected to find lots of WMD, based on that all that intelligence that everyone believed.
Whoops.
No WMD. Some think they’ve been spirited to Syria, but no one knows. All anyone knows is…no WMD.
[Let me be clear. I believe Iraq had WMD. I DO NOT think President Clinton made it all up. But if he didn't...then neither did Bush.]
Now, if a president were LYING about the existance of WMD, he might think to plant a few hundred gallons of something (and maybe a funked-out nuclear device) in the desert around Iraq, in order to bolster his claim, to not look like a fool or a miscreant. But if he were simply BELIEVING the intelligence everyone else believed, why…I guess he would assume that reasonable people would say,”wow…we ALL believed that there were WMD. There were not. How come?”
Bush’s boner was in assuming he was dealing with reasonable people, people who understand that a “lie” is a willful mistatement of a fact, while a belief based on intelligence deemed credible by everyone in the whole world is…a belief based on intelligence deemed credible by the whole world…[but which in fact was wrong.]
Why was the intelligence wrong? That was a pretty big mistake, and it was a mistake made, it seems, around 1998. Where did the false intelligence come from, and who propagated it? And why?
Those are the questions that need answering. If the Senate wants to shut down until they are answered, I’m all for it. Let’s get a real investigation going, here. Let’s find out where the bad intel came from. Let’s find out why, when we believed such weapons existed, our FBI and CIA were not talking about it together. Let’s find out why the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Hutton Commission in England both declared that the Niger Yellowcake story was “credible” and why Britian still stands by it. Let’s find out what Able Danger did or did not confirm about WMD. Let’s find out if Sandy Berger spirited any information about what we really did or did not know, out of the National Archives. Was the whole thing another illusion, one that appealed to Saddam’s romance-novel writing machismo vanity? One that the whole world sustained because there was money to be made from the sanctions and the UN Oil-for-Food Bank for Big Guys?
It seems like back in 1998, and in the succeeding years, the possibility that Iraq had WMD served quite a few people with quite a few agendas. Was it all a lie laid-out-too well? One that “stupid Bush” was not SUPPOSED to believe and act on, because the things were never there?
I’d like the answers. We’d all like the answers. An investigation is well in order. But let’s take it from the beginning, shall we? I want to hear what President Clinton and Sec. Albright and Sandy Berger and Ted Kennedy and everyone else knew or believed, and why, right from the start. I want to hear from Kofi Annan and George Galloway and all the folks who pocketed money or barrels or oil thanks to the sanctions against “dangerous, recalcitrant” Iraq. When and what did they believe, about WMD, and why?
Then I would like to hear what team Bush knew or believed, and why.
Then I want to hear why everyone believed it until it was proved false, and then everyone’s belief simply became “one man’s lie.”
We are a whole nation, not merely a nation of thems and we’s. The whole nation needs to know what the whole government thought, and when it thought it; what it believed and why it believed it.
I suggest Sen. Reid and Sen. Durbin get to it. Mount an investigation. America deserves it. She has earned it. Her troops have earned it.
What was “true” in 1998, and “true” in 2003, has turned out to be “not true,” in 2005. I am at a loss to understand how that is one man’s “lie.” But if it is…which man?
Until we know that, here are some more quotes:
“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 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
UPDATE: Wow, SCA and I seem to be on the same wavelength. They write: We Went To War Because Bill Clinton Told The Truth
We went to war because Bill Clinton told the truth. The Dems would now have us believe that we ought to consider everything Mr Clinton said was a lie. If Mr Bush lied, it was because he relied on the lies of Mr Clinton. Presidents rely on each other when it comes to protecting the homeland.
There you go. Either Bill Clinton told the truth about WMD, and Bush believed him. Or he lied about WMD, and Bush believed him. Jimmy Carter is confused, also.
I had no idea Glenn Reynolds was also thinking the same thing, but he’s got a nice timeline here. Again that troublesome year, 1998. H/T Dr. Sanity who is also on the case! Bull Moose, too. Lorie Byrd, sick with the Byrd flu, touched on all of this here and here. We wish her a speedy recovery!
UPDATE II: bracketed portions [] edited for clarity.
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:43 am
You know, if you keep telling the truth, you might be excluded from the Kumbaya Circle- and that means no trophy for you!
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:21 pm
This argument is terribly convincing. It will also remained ignored by those who world view demands that Republicans are evil.
.
Good round-up though.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Y’know, Sarin gas in warheads, buried in the sand, is considered WMD. And that’s only part of what HAS been found in Iraq. We found WMD. It was there. The Intelligence may have been off, but it was essentially correct.
MSM is wrong about it as about so many other things, Anchoress.
*Why do I want to find a Lefty and sneer, “Neener, neener, neeener!”?*
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Remember “truth” is relative to the Left. These characters actually maintain that the Clinton Era intelligence has nothing to do with the argument.
Too bad the MSM doesn’t have access to their videotape libraries showing all those quotes(and hundreds more) in real time. Oh wait. They do. But showing them would take away from Barbara Walters’ airtime featuring Kanye West as one of the most fascinating celebrities of 2005….
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Darrell-
Truth can be relative on both sides of the aisle. And what you do with the truth is also relevant. Basic risk assessment states if you take something as truth, it may still be ultimately proven right- or wrong. And that will have an impact, based on the actions taken.
My argument is less about whether wmd was considered “true” prior to the start of the war. What did Clinton gamble based on that truth? Not much, cause while he may have been bellicose, he didn’t send any troops. If proven untrue, there’d be virtually no imapct, cause we didn’t act. Bush risked a lot more on the same information- the question is, WAS there enough to take the gamble? Clinton didn’t, Bush did. Which action directly caused a worse condition?
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:08 pm
The basic point is - WERE THERE WMD or not? WHY was it right for Clinton to believe there were, and wrong for Bush to believe the same.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Sethanie, I firmly beleive, based on what OBL said, that President Clinton’s inaction in Irag, Yemen, and several other places was what directly led to the attack on 9/11 in New York. Secondly, there have been numerous reports of WMD found in Irag. Interesting how there is no reporting on them.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Stephanie says:
“What did Clinton gamble based on that [WMD] truth? Not much, cause while he may have been bellicose, he didn’t send any troops.”
Stephanie is arguing that Pres. Clinton knew big talk was unjustified, but he nevertheless engaged in big talk.
Stephanie might argue that President Clinton was simply engaging in politics. If he was, it was bad politics. If the Democrats make Stephanie’s argument, they are effectively saying: “Vote for us, our politics are misleading.”
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Thanks for the round-up.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:45 pm
[...] The The Anchoress asks: How can one administration’s use of intelligence be reasonable and credible, but another administration’s use of the same intelligence be an unreasonable lie? [...]
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:08 pm
And you can keep on going from there…
E.g.:
“If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and Unscom cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights. . . . 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.”
Senator John Kerry
February 23, 1998
“If Saddam’s regime and survival are threatened [by invasion], he will have nothing to lose, and may use everything at his disposal… If weapons of mass destruction land on Israeli soil, killing innocent civilians, the experts I have consulted believe Israel will retaliate, and possibly with nuclear weapons… Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons.”
Senator Ted Kennedy, c. 1998
That said, Dave J is right: Starting from the premise that Republicans are evil, none of this mankes any difference whatsoever. The end (removing Republicans from office) justifies the means (throwing logic, consistency, fairness and history to the winds).
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:31 pm
gcotharn,
I’m not arguing that he knew it was unjustified- I’m arguing that justified or not, he wasn’t acting on it- which makes whether or not it was justified irrelevant. Bush’s actions upped the stakes.
Put it this way- if the information is believed true @ WMD, the republican argument has been clinton acted wrongly by not declaring war and bush acted rightly in starting the war.
Is the inverse true? If WMD info isfalse, Clinton right and Bush wrong?
A couple questions emerge:
Was the intelligence any different between 98and 2002? Earlier intelligence proven more OR less credible?
I would have sworn on a stack of bibles in 98 that I was going to be a high school teacher, was going to marry the buy I was in love with, etc. By 2002, I knew my earlier intelligence on teaching was false (had left teaching) and was finding it less credible that I was going to marry the boy. If I stood by the same info from ‘98, by 2002 I would have been lying- it had been proved less than reliable.
Garet- then you’ve answered the question. You think Clinton should have acted differently. Fair enough
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Well, the intel situation of 1998 was not necessarily the one of 2003. I can’t say of course if someone in the White House wanted to go to war no matter what, or if some, maybe even the president, knew that there were no WMDs. Personally, I don’t think they believed it was quite as imminent a threat as it was portrayed. All this doesn’t mean of course that the Dems aren’t full of crap
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:11 pm
[...] In order to make the mere charge of “Bush Lied” stick, Congressional Democrats had to revise history to remove from the record, comments by other Democrats that Saddam Hussein represented a threat to America because of WMD and ties to terrorism. “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors” - President William Jefferson Clinton 12/16/98 [...]
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Rockefeller Demanded The Politicization of Iraq Intelligence Failings
Do you recall the memo that Sean Hannity was judiciously provided where Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) laid out a strategy early on to use the failings of intelligence data on Iraq’s WMD capabilities to whack the Bush Administration upside the hea…
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:41 pm
[...] [...]
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:18 am
Stephanie, I think you confuse “intelligence” with speculation. If you saw a blue Oldsmobile in your garage in 1998, and had not sold it or moved it, would you suspect that it would be there in 2002?
Maybe we will hear reports of “mysterious” deaths coming from Syria and Iran in the next decade or so. Then the WMD mystery may be solved. Things happen when there’s an 16-month runup to a war.
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:32 am
[...] The Anchoress, Where did the WMD Intel come from?, [...]
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:21 am
Darrell,
The things happen is a different issue- and on that you and I agree. We know they were not in Iraq AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION. I can’t, and don’t, rule out the possibility that they were moved. However, that too is speculation :-).
My point is merely if you’re going to use the intel as a basis for a pretty significant action, you should scrutinize it more closely than if it’s information that’s there, but you’re not planning to act on. I was skeptical before the war- not that the intel was correct, but that it was sufficient and accurate ENOUGH to warrant that being the centerpiece of the sales pitch to the american people. I’m even more skeptical now. But really, isn’t that all beside the point? We can’t change what we did, right or wrong. I’m still hoping it’ll turn out to be the right thing, even if I’ll never be convinced it was for the right reasons.
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Stephanie, and everyone, I suggest you read “Why We Are in Iraq”. Parts 1 and 2, please. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=16103
Then we can discuss this further.
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Gore/Clinton/Rockefeller lied, people died
The Wall Street Journal notes the two-faced nature of the Democrats who are currently pitching a fit about “lying” by the White House: Yet, incredibly, Mr. Wilson has once again become the Democrats’ favorite mascot because they want him…
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:11 pm
When It’s Not Your Administration?
The Anchoress » Where did the WMD Intel come from?How can one administration’s use of intelligence be reasonable and credible,…
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Darrell,
Am about 2/3 of the way through what I assume is Part 1, and so far all I’m reading is an opinion piece. Where is the fact? “Read this and then we can discuss further?” That implies there is some fact involved…this is just a regurgitation of old arguments. I’m afraid I don’t see the value add.
November 4th, 2005 at 1:51 am
What gave it away? The “Part 1″ at the top of the page?
It lays out the whole argument. Perhaps some others of you will find value with it.
As the saying goes, absence of proof is not proof of absence. We still have not found the launching sites for those SCUD missiles from the 91 War…you know the ones in the Western desert where SCUDS were launched against Israel and Saudi Arabia. We still have not found all of Saddam’s bunkers–many elaborate ones with complete command and control structures were build by Chinese contractors from a German design. Who knows what lies under ordinary looking dwellings in areas we haven’t searched, cities we barely have a presence in. We have not even rounded up all the Saddam “doubles”…He had at least six according to certain experts.
The bottom line is that we did not go to war solely because of WMDs. That’s the Dems smokescreen. It was reason No. 6(?) in that State of the Union Address, wasn’t it? Certainly not reason No. 1. Show me the evidence saying that the Intel community believed Saddam no longer had WMDs, and that it was ignored by the Bush Administration. No intelligence service in the world believed that, including Syria and Iran. How do you explain that? Bush tampered with every countries intelligence assessments of Iraq?
November 4th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
The bottom line in the article you posted Darrell, is that liberals are un-American. As a citizen of this country, I don’t feel safer from terrorism with the Iraq war. I would have felt safer if President Bush had put all his energy in to going after Al-Qader. But now that we are there, it is kind of irrelevant to be debating whether we should have gone or not.
November 4th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
[...] The Anchoress has a detailed post on all the Clinton administration statements on Iraq WMDs in 1998, and highlights the hypocrisy of the agenda driven liberal media. How can one administration’s use of intelligence be reasonable and credible, but another administration’s use of the same intelligence be an unreasonable lie? [...]
November 4th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Then why is you party doing it? Channeling Ted Kennedy with “Al-Qader?”
November 4th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
I don’t belong to any party Darrell
November 11th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
[...] UPDATE: The president’s speech seems to be creating a lot of google hits for this posting. People looking for Democrat quotes, I guess. [...]
November 17th, 2005 at 7:21 am
[...] First, read this post by the Anchoress, and follow all necessary links to source documents. After that, follow up with this interview of Bill Tierney, former weapons inspector with UNSCOM, prior to the invasion of Iraq. [...]
September 18th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
[...] But since some people need convincin’, Gateway Pundit has more evidence, per CNN, circa 1999. You know…back when Bill Clinton was president and it was perfectly correct to believe that Saddam needed to be taken out, and regime-change was our official policy. Funny how things evolve, innit? [...]
December 18th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
[...] 1) Okay, you didn’t know, you’re forgiven for voting for the war. All democrats are forgiven for voting for the war, because even though they all agreed - from 1998 to 2003 - that Saddam had WMD and was dangerous, and even though the NY Times has revealed that Saddam was a year away from nukes, it was a big scam by Bushitler. So, now what? What’s the answer, Senator Clinton? What’s the answer, Senator Obama? [...]
January 16th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Scott Ritter our own US weapons inspector said in 2002:
“There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.
We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.
If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple.
As of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.”
And on 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer. Guest host John King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:
“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
And during a press conference on February 24, 2001 during Colin Powell’s visit to Cairo, Egypt said;
“We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…”
February 10th, 2007 at 11:33 am
[...] who called Bush “a genocidal racist” after Hurricane Katrina, or like the party (and the press) who spent years telling America about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction only to later pretend t…, and to pretend further that somehow Bush’s believing the same things they believed…made him a [...]
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 am
[...] is not what is real, that what I am hearing is not really being said, that what my own reason can sensibly deduce makes no sense? Stop telling me I don’t know what I’m encountering and that my reason is [...]
May 24th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
[...] intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000],” or it was not. Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
[...] (remember? - scroll down the link) but because we believed, the world believed, everyone believed - St. Bill Clinton, and his holy chorus believed - that Saddam had a huge stockpile of WMD, and in a post 9/11 world, Ms. Couric, any president - [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
[...] (remember? - scroll down the link) but because we believed, the world believed, everyone believed - St. Bill Clinton, and his holy chorus believed - that Saddam had a huge stockpile of WMD, and in a post 9/11 world, Ms. Couric, any president - [...]
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
[...] for as long as I’ve been blogging, I’ve been asking Where did the WMD intel come from?, a good question that everyone ignored in the rush to chant, “Bush lied!” As I pointed [...]
December 10th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
[...] Where did the WMD Intel Come From? None of this would be happening if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq by TheAnchoress @ 1:47 pm. [...]
December 20th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
[...] administration’s inability or unwillingness to get out before a “narrative,” and correct it, or defend itself against obnoxious carryings on. But you know…I think I get it, now. The [...]