Look Who's Talking Now ...

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-05 01:28am

An interesting tidbit, courtesy of Doc Martyn over at the History & Politics Board.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-05 01:49am

Those are some lovely quotes. Too bad the facts disagree.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-05 01:59am

Who gives a shit anymore?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-05 02:06am

An irrelevant bunch of non-factual nonsense from Democrats. I fail to see where anyone blew sunshine up their arse for their Iraq policy either. Though why the poster saw fit to include 2001/2002 quotes I won't know, considering that they had no bloody idea they were being led up the garden path.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-05 02:14am

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Oh, but this is an interesting assertion ...

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-05 03:21am

Axis Kast wrote:Oh, but this is an interesting assertion ...

Why?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-05 04:03am

Because our disagreement with Bush apparently means we must agree with Clinton.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-05 09:03am

The fact that for a decade American political leaders on both sides of the aisle grossly overestimated Saddam's capabilities means what now?

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-10-05 10:05am

WHO THE FUCK CARES?!

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-05 06:09pm

Because accusations that Hussein was a clear and present danger didn't begin with Bush. It's rather difficult to accuse the current administration of any kind of evil, warmongering conspiracy when the security issues it happens to be dealing with were essentially passed on from previous White House officials.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2003-10-05 06:13pm

Axis Kast wrote:Because accusations that Hussein was a clear and present danger didn't begin with Bush. It's rather difficult to accuse the current administration of any kind of evil, warmongering conspiracy when the security issues it happens to be dealing with were essentially passed on from previous White House officials.

Since when does not being the first to claim something wrong make it right?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-05 06:14pm

Who the fuck cares except Axis? No one was saying this was a partisan issue, and the obvious implication in this torrent of bullshit is that somehow everyone thought the Democrats were better.

Sorry, but the facts speak and being a Democrat and speaking about shit five years ago just doesn't prove a damn thing, Kast.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-05 08:22pm

Albright's statement indicats a continuity of analysis between the Clinton and Bush administrations. That kind of accusation is vindication from the charge that the Bush White House somehow pulled the accusations out of a hat.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-05 08:42pm

Axis Kast wrote:Albright's statement indicats a continuity of analysis between the Clinton and Bush administrations. That kind of accusation is vindication from the charge that the Bush White House somehow pulled the accusations out of a hat.

Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?
-- Obi-wan Kenobi, Star Wars.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2003-10-05 10:02pm

Axis Kast wrote:Albright's statement indicats a continuity of analysis between the Clinton and Bush administrations. That kind of accusation is vindication from the charge that the Bush White House somehow pulled the accusations out of a hat.

So basically he pulled them out of someone else's hat?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-05 10:07pm

Axis Kast wrote:Albright's statement indicats a continuity of analysis between the Clinton and Bush administrations. That kind of accusation is vindication from the charge that the Bush White House somehow pulled the accusations out of a hat.

Under Clinton, Saddam was so dangerous that he merited constant UN and US oversight, as well as sanctions. Under Bush, Saddam suddenly became so dangerous that the US itself was in imminent danger of being attacked on a massive scale and had no choice but to invade Iraq. You don't see the distinction?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-05 10:09pm

Since when does Bill Clinton's administration have anything to do with this? Jesus Fucking Christ, conservatives for the next 50 years are going to be blaming shit on and harping about Clinton whenever they're attacked by the other side. Don't you people ever fucking stop?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-05 10:12pm

What would happen to political debates if people from one party were forbidden to mention the other party when asked to defend their views?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-05 10:14pm

Darth Wong wrote:What would happen to political debates if people from one party were forbidden to mention the other party when asked to defend their views?

They'd be more interesting, because then the candidates might actually need to have views, instead of sound bites.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-05 10:14pm

Since when does Bill Clinton's administration have anything to do with this? Jesus Fucking Christ, conservatives for the next 50 years are going to be blaming shit on and harping about Clinton whenever they're attacked by the other side. Don't you people ever fucking stop?

And you're not going to be doing the exact same thing with Dubya? 'Cause I know I sure as hell will be, and I'm not a Democrat.

But no one in this particular situation is blaming Bill Clinton for anything.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-05 10:15pm

Darth Wong wrote:What would happen to political debates if people from one party were forbidden to mention the other party when asked to defend their views?

You have to have someone to compare your policies against, address the arguments of the other parties, etc.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-05 11:26pm

Albright's statements refer directly to weapons of mass destruction. No matter what Clinton did, that must have set off alarms.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-05 11:43pm

Axis Kast wrote:Albright's statements refer directly to weapons of mass destruction. No matter what Clinton did, that must have set off alarms.

We know what Clinton did. It had nothing to do with what Bush did. End of story.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-05 11:51pm

Durran Korr wrote:And you're not going to be doing the exact same thing with Dubya? 'Cause I know I sure as hell will be, and I'm not a Democrat.

But no one in this particular situation is blaming Bill Clinton for anything.

No, but Axis is still acting like if Clinton endorsed the idea of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has any bearing on the fact that they're not fucking there. As if this should silence all criticism from the left. That's absurd.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-10-06 12:49am

Darth Wong wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:Albright's statement indicats a continuity of analysis between the Clinton and Bush administrations. That kind of accusation is vindication from the charge that the Bush White House somehow pulled the accusations out of a hat.
Under Clinton, Saddam was so dangerous that he merited constant UN and US oversight, as well as sanctions. Under Bush, Saddam suddenly became so dangerous that the US itself was in imminent danger of being attacked on a massive scale and had no choice but to invade Iraq. You don't see the distinction?

Of course he doesn't. This is going to be Comical Axi's pathetic attempt at a "two wrongs make a right" defence for the present White House; notwithstanding that it fails because there was more than enough information flowing in, from the CIA, from UNMOVIC and the IAEA that Saddam Hussein was not the threat he was being built up to be by this White House —which went ahead and continued to claim otherwise even to the extent of putting forth plagerised college term papers and forged documents as "evidence".