Interesting WMD quotes from interesting sources

[DaveW]

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"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." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"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." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998


(source) (http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2003_06_08.PHP#001026)

[Matthyahuw]

Now if they'd only show that on TV during an interview...

[1stFlight]

Geez, do you guys ever give up?

According to you all the "evidence" irregardless of who uttered it, would lead the average person to believe Iraq had just stockpiles of chemical weapons just littering the streets

Then where are they?!

Face it, minus absolute proof of a threat , you have no cause to go waging wars.

Bush screwed the pooch on this one with his childish level of patience I hope he pays for it. The Presidency is no place for children.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Geez, do you guys ever give up?

According to you all the "evidence" irregardless of who uttered it, would lead the average person to believe Iraq had just stockpiles of chemical weapons just littering the streets

Then where are they?!

Face it, minus absolute proof of a threat , you have no cause to go waging wars.

Bush screwed the pooch on this one with his childish level of patience I hope he pays for it. The Presidency is no place for children.

LOL! You sound like James Carville. LOL!

Yeah it was terrible for us to rid the world of this good man. :rolleyes:

Don't give us your morality speach. The left has no platform from which to speak from. :rolleyes:

[jnd3]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Geez, do you guys ever give up?

According to you all the "evidence" irregardless of who uttered it, would lead the average person to believe Iraq had just stockpiles of chemical weapons just littering the streets

Then where are they?!

Face it, minus absolute proof of a threat , you have no cause to go waging wars.

Bush screwed the pooch on this one with his childish level of patience I hope he pays for it. The Presidency is no place for children.
Irregardless isn't a word. :p :D

Now then, on to the facts. I would consider about half of the people on the list to be known liars (Bill & Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Scott Ritter). So it's entirely within my realm of credibility that they're all a bunch of liars.

However, I find it much more credible that our intelligence gathering is for the crapper than that ALL these people are lying.

Here, get yer head around this one from philosophy professor Keith Burgess-Jackson (http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-060503B):
[S]uppose President Bush in fact had no reputable motive in going to war. Suppose he had only disreputable motives, such as defending his daddy's honor. Does this show that the war is unjustified, morally speaking? Again, the answer is no. Justification is objective; motivation is subjective. The war can be justified as an act of self-defense or liberation of a people (to name just two of many justifications) even if the person waging the war doesn't understand it in those terms - even if he or she doesn't view those as justifications. For consider: Either there is a justification for the war (objectively speaking) or there is not. If there is, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. If there isn't, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. Either way, it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush.
(Italics mine. But as they say, read the whole thing.)

Cheers,
JND

[1stFlight]

You basic arguement is, "the ends justify the means".

They don't

And it's it's not an arguement we'd want other nations to use, if we want anything that resembles a peaceful world.

If Clinton's lies mean so much to many of you, why are you ready to pass over Bush's flagrant lies? Hypocrisy?

Btw:

One entry found for irregardless.
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

[Matthyahuw]

does this guy ever stop? gimme a break :rolleyes:


HE HAD THE F00KING WMDs!!!

And if he didn't as of that day, he was working up to it to kill us all, including even your iraqi-sympathetic family!

so STFU and open your freakin eyes!

Those 2 mobile labs could have made enough Anthrax to kill everyone in NY, Tons of it in liquid form, then if dried, those tons could fit into 2 large suitcases. You go to California (the same size as Iraq) and go find me 2 suitcaes I hid there a year ago...

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by Matthyahuw

HE HAD THE F00KING WMDs!!!



I'll tell you then same thing Bush is hearing, PROVE IT

And no, it's not that easy to transport chem/bio weapons, you've been misinformed.

And even if they could be transported that well, the program that created them, and the ability to weaponize them, isn't that easily hidden.

So STFU and quit letting your fear the media hype influence your opinion so much.

[UDawg]

The whole problem with your position is that you put Bush on a lower level than Saddam. This is nuts and it proves your hatred for Bush. You just can't let go the fact you lost in 2000. BAHAHA! and I love the fact the left gets it's panties in a bunch over this issue cuz when it all comes down to it. YOU LOST!!!!!!!!!!! *echo, echo, echo*

[ibGoodEnuf]

Gosh darn it Matty,

Be nice. Obviously the Kurds were dusted with talcum by US Spec Ops as a photo op in 1988. Besides, Clinton was indeed a far more mature and responsible President. Well, maybe the sophomoric weanie wagging and groping were a bad idea, but hey....

[Matthyahuw]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
And no, it's not that easy to transport chem/bio weapons, you've been misinformed. So they weren't just MAILED to ppl last year, where a lot of ppl got sick, and more than a few died???

You tell me what the mobile labs were for other than WMD, and you can prove me wrong, cuz that's what they're for, and he had other projects going at the same time, i.e. dead Kurds (how soon ppl forget).

fooking liberals, if we had the same arguments 60yrs earlier, we'd all be under Nazi rule...

Give the benefit of the doubt to ppl that deserve it. Such as a report came out that the UK was going to nuke all of Africa. Ya, you'd say, no, that's not true!
But when you hear Iraq is going to gas Kuwait, you take it seriously as history repeats itself...take the blinders off man!


EDIT: BTW, I have no fears. I know things will come out in the end on the side of righteousness. But if you and your liberal buddies insist on letting evil flourish, someone's gotta put a stop to it...

[jnd3]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
You basic arguement is, "the ends justify the means".
No, my basic argument is that I believe the war was objectively justified regardless of Bush's/Blair's motivation. If they had said, "Saddam's a bad guy, and he's gotta go," that would have been enough for me. I think that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power, and he was not going to leave voluntarily.


One entry found for irregardless.
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Bah. Fine. It's a word, but "it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead." ;) :p

Cheers,
JND

[intercede007]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
I'll tell you then same thing Bush is hearing, PROVE IT



You're joking, right? The guy OBVIOUSLY had weapons of mass destruction.

Hello Mr. Kurd, how are you today? Feeling a bit ill from the Nerve and Vx gas still?

And gee look, Tel Aviv had mended the scars from the scud missle attacks Saddam launched in the Gulf War! And Saudi Arabia too! Yipee!!

And I wonder where all of Iraq's nuclear centerfuge drawings and plans went? What about weapons design drawings that once existed? What about the Uranium conversion components that remain at large? A plutonium-beryllium neutron source, potentially useful as a neutron initiator for a nuclear bomb, is still missing..where did it go? Over 3 tons of Uranium remains unaccounted for. That's expensive and hard to refine stuff. It doesn't just dissapear like a gym sock. Would you just lose a Ferrari if you had one?

The Israeli Air Force did quite a bit of damage to one reactor and research facility in 1981, but they didn't destroy 3 tons of uranium and all their research documents. Come on man! It may not be in Iraq, but it sure as hell is somewhere!!!!

[DaveW]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Geez, do you guys ever give up?

According to you all the "evidence" irregardless of who uttered it, would lead the average person to believe Iraq had just stockpiles of chemical weapons just littering the streets


I wasn't posting those quotes because I consider them proof. Thats not the point.

I thought those quotes were interesting because a lot of those people are now saying "there was no reason to believe Iraq had WMD". These quotes highlight just how people can completely change their tone to fit best their current political motives. They contradict themselves all the time and so its very difficult to believe anything they say is their honest opinion.

Anyway, we can't even find WMD in our OWN country (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20030610/D7RIK5LG1.html), and thats after 2 years. Yet you expect them to be found in Iraq which has only been occupied for a few months? Chemical and biological weapons can be made in small civilian buildings, like the basement of a library or school. There are millions of locations to search. Its not like there is going a big factory labelled "chemical weapons inc" ... such obvious targets have been taken out by airstrikes long ago.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by 1stFlight

And no, it's not that easy to transport chem/bio weapons, you've been misinformed.


Say what? its not that hard, over here the guy who send those anthrax letters just use the US postal service!!!

I think what you mean is that its not easy to SAFELY transport chemo/bio weapons. But do you think Saddam is the kind of guy who thinks about the safety of his employees?

[1stFlight]

Umm, yes, he wasn't that stupid, it's hard for scientists to produce bigger and better weapons if they're dead.

Common sense man.

Originally posted by DaveW
Say what? its not that hard, over here the guy who send those anthrax letters just use the US postal service!!!

I think what you mean is that its not easy to SAFELY transport chemo/bio weapons. But do you think Saddam is the kind of guy who thinks about the safety of his employees?

[1stFlight]

I'm glad you see the world in such simplistic terms, so are we the worlds policeman now? Or are we just going to go against those we have a grudge against?

Originally posted by jnd3
No, my basic argument is that I believe the war was objectively justified regardless of Bush's/Blair's motivation. If they had said, "Saddam's a bad guy, and he's gotta go," that would have been enough for me. I think that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power, and he was not going to leave voluntarily.


Bah. Fine. It's a word, but "it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead." ;) :p

Cheers,
JND

[1stFlight]

It's worth being mentioned that those "weapons" were last used against the Kurds nearly 20 years ago. And weren't used against israel (that would have been too foolish even for him), Saudi or Kuwait.

The Uranium bit was a forgery.

I'll give you the postal service, I never really thought of it as much of a vector, but it's been proven it can be. Usually vectors are a little more involved.

Specially designed muntions, missles, warheads that kind of thing. Designed for mass deployments, not small scale stuff like...a mailing list.

Originally posted by intercede007
You're joking, right? The guy OBVIOUSLY had weapons of mass destruction.

Hello Mr. Kurd, how are you today? Feeling a bit ill from the Nerve and Vx gas still?

And gee look, Tel Aviv had mended the scars from the scud missle attacks Saddam launched in the Gulf War! And Saudi Arabia too! Yipee!!

And I wonder where all of Iraq's nuclear centerfuge drawings and plans went? What about weapons design drawings that once existed? What about the Uranium conversion components that remain at large? A plutonium-beryllium neutron source, potentially useful as a neutron initiator for a nuclear bomb, is still missing..where did it go? Over 3 tons of Uranium remains unaccounted for. That's expensive and hard to refine stuff. It doesn't just dissapear like a gym sock. Would you just lose a Ferrari if you had one?

The Israeli Air Force did quite a bit of damage to one reactor and research facility in 1981, but they didn't destroy 3 tons of uranium and all their research documents. Come on man! It may not be in Iraq, but it sure as hell is somewhere!!!!

[jnd3]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
I'm glad you see the world in such simplistic terms, so are we the worlds policeman now? Or are we just going to go against those we have a grudge against?
Sacre bleu! I seem to have that, how you say, Western simplisme! I see things in terms of, how you say, good and evil, right and wrong! Mon dieu!

Gosh, I feel so un-sophisticated now. I think I'll just go home... :cool:

And I think the world could use a good policeman. I also think the UN is impotent. Do the math from there. There's trash that needs taking out, so somebody better get to it before the place starts to stink even more...

Cheers,
JND

[1stFlight]

Great, so it should be fine when China decides it should be the worlds policeman right? After all they're a superpower too...

How about if they decide supporting North Korea is a beter option than supporting South Korea?

Anyone else understand the slippery slope one walks with logic like this?

Originally posted by jnd3
Sacre bleu! I seem to have that, how you say, Western simplisme! I see things in terms of, how you say, good and evil, right and wrong! Mon dieu!

Gosh, I feel so un-sophisticated now. I think I'll just go home... :cool:

And I think the world could use a good policeman. I also think the UN is impotent. Do the math from there. There's trash that needs taking out, so somebody better get to it before the place starts to stink even more...

Cheers,
JND

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
It's worth being mentioned that those "weapons" were last used against the Kurds nearly 20 years ago. And weren't used against israel (that would have been too foolish even for him), Saudi or Kuwait.

The Uranium bit was a forgery.

I'll give you the postal service, I never really thought of it as much of a vector, but it's been proven it can be. Usually vectors are a little more involved.

Specially designed muntions, missles, warheads that kind of thing. Designed for mass deployments, not small scale stuff like...a mailing list.

Yet is was ok when we were policing the world with Clinton? It is ok to fight civil wars but not to free a nation from a evil dictator? It is ok to use the US Army as a Meals on Wheels program but if wew defend our selves and again free a nation from the horror of Dr. Evil it is not morally just? You most certainly a Liberal. LMAO!

BTW WTF! Does Israel have to do with any of this!? You sir have an obsession almost a fetish with Israel. I frankly don't understand it. I mean I can't stand the French but I don't think they want to take over the world. First off the thought of the French winning a war is just obsurd. LMAO

Also it was 14 years ago. Don't round up to make it look worse. ;)

...and a final bit. In true liberal form he pulls out the "your not smart line" :rolleyes: I love it when liberals pull this out because all you have to do it hold your line and they go nuts with black and white solutions or answers. LMAO

[DaveW]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Umm, yes, he wasn't that stupid, it's hard for scientists to produce bigger and better weapons if they're dead.

Common sense man.

The scientists wouldn't transport the stuff. You think doctor "germ" transported all her projects personally in her car?

[Sazar]

/me jumps on the merry go round..

weee... this be fun :D

/me pops a bottle of champagne while savoring teh fun :D

[ibGoodEnuf]

:banghead:

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Great, so it should be fine when China decides it should be the worlds policeman right? After all they're a superpower too...

How about if they decide supporting North Korea is a beter option than supporting South Korea?

Anyone else understand the slippery slope one walks with logic like this?

Better yet. How bout we sit in dark room with K.I.L.E.R. and watch him drink a glass of urine, while we get attacked again? :rolleyes: