Um. . .no title quite fits this.

[jforbes]

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."

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."

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

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

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."

"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. So the threat of Sadaam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
---Senator John F. Kerry, January 23, 2003 at Georgetown University.

NUFF said

[Morphine Child]

Nowhere does Clinton in 1998 say they have WMD. There's a big difference between "having" WMD and "thinking about or trying to accumulate sources" to construct WMD. Clinton bombed Iraq. He didn't declare war on them because he didn't see a need for an all out invasion. Like I said earlier, I wasn't opposed to taking down Saddam. But we had gone about taking down leaders and replacing them with puppet leaders fairly consistently for many years before Saddam.

There's a fine line between "using force" and "declaring war". We use force on countries everyday to persuade a lot of governments, in a lot of useful ways for ourselves. Which is necessary. All out war on the other hand is tedious, expensive and as we're finding out now, a very long and slow process of rebuilding and shifting power.

As for everyone else on that list...Pelosi? Kennedy? Kerry? They're weren't the ones making the final call.

[bassjones]

Actually they were. The President can't declare war or even authorise the use of force. Only congress can.

[Garr]

"Strike. Win. Get the f#ck out", I do not disagree with. Nagasaki them? What? That's insane.

That was more metaphoric than it was literal. I didn't mean to actually drop an atomic bomb on them.

[Garr]

@ jforbes. . .

So where were they? I mean, we STILL haven't found them. This war has been going on since, what? May of 2003? We've overthrown the dictator but somehow these WMDs are like super ninja bombs and they can turn invisible using super secret ninja sh*t that they learned while spending ten years training under the Persian Gulf.

[adam atherton]

we'll start on the ones that were used against the kurds that saddam was hanged for killing.


let ingnorance shine through, indeed.

you above all should know that the reason we know he has/had them is because we have the receipt.

[adam atherton]

for garr, who does not believe in weapons of mass destruction being used by saddam:





((((GRAPHIC PICTURE FOLLOWS))))




























































after a "quick google search"

[adam atherton]

coming soon:


"the holocaust did not happen"

[Garr]

Really, though, that image doesn't prove or document anything. Nice shock value, but it doesn't substantiate or corroborate your point. Is this how you normally argue a point? If so, I'm not going to engage in debates or discussions with you anymore. Nothing disappoints me more than people who demand evidence from others and provide none, or provide faulty support for their own statements.

[Morphine Child]

Actually they were. The President can't declare war or even authorise the use of force. Only congress can.

Maybe I mis-worded that...I knew someone would catch me.

They don't have quite the voice that the president has is how I should have phrased it. If in 1998 Nancy Pelosi would have said "Let's go to war with Iraq! " People would have told her to settle down. Same goes for John Kerry or Ted Kennedy circa 2002. A presidents voice and influence goes much further than any of their voices.

[Morphine Child]

we'll start on the ones that were used against the kurds that saddam was hanged for killing.


let ingnorance shine through, indeed.

you above all should know that the reason we know he has/had them is because we have the receipt.

Stealing Bill Hicks material. While commendable, if Iraq has made no progress beyond the weapons we sold them under GW Sr., we don't have much too worry about.

You know what? You should take that information and your picture from Google to the Weapons committee. Because they've had one hell of a time finding WMD in Iraq. You're probably right though. That picture pretty much overrules all of the weapon committee reports confirming that in the last 5 years we've been unable to find anything. I hope they do though. I'd be willing to say, "I was wrong" if that they found WMD.

I worry that instead of us saying the holocaust never happened you're going to post a picture of the Loch Ness monster with 100 verbal witness accounts and ask me to disprove that.

[bassjones]

Many of the WMDs are in Syria. Some are buried in underground bunkers that aren't that easy to find. It's not like he left them out where everyone could see them or anything.

Perhaps his program wasn't as far along as EVERYFREAKINGBODY thought it was. That doesn't mean "Bush Lied" . It just means EVERYFREAKINGBODY was wrong.

[Morphine Child]

Many of the WMDs are in Syria. Some are buried in underground bunkers that aren't that easy to find. It's not like he left them out where everyone could see them or anything.

Perhaps his program wasn't as far along as EVERYFREAKINGBODY thought it was. That doesn't mean "Bush Lied" . It just means EVERYFREAKINGBODY was wrong.

Is "WMD are in Syria" a known fact? Or yet another speculation? I went ahead and googled it myself. The best I could find was "speculation of WMD in Syria". The other half of the stuff I found is "nothing in Syria". hmm. Nowhere do I seen anything beyond speculation that there are WMD in Syria. And if there were something it would be all over the damn place because it would get people like me to shut the hell up. But it hasn't happened. Do you realize that if they found definitive proof that there were WMD in Syria that would silence a large majority of the opposition to the war? They went into Iraq with that being one of (if not the biggest) reasons. So wouldn't vindicating that reason be a huge step? You can't say "are in Syria" and "buried in underground bunkers" when that has never been shown or proven. Of course in a different thread you accused Clinton of raping a woman, who again had no proof of an alleged incident that occurred 30 years ago.

Where did I say, "Bush lied"? I didn't. Presenting incomplete and shady evidence isn't lying as much as it is "jumping the gun". Either way, it was wrong. Lying or jumping the gun, it was WRONG. The reason that EVERYFREAKINGBODY thought that there were WMD in Iraq is because they were all given the same crap intelligence that has not been proven, and which higher level officials have since said "oops" about. That's a big expensive "oops".

[Hutnick]

I am addressing this to people on both sides of the fence. How many of you have been able to sit in on a closed door White House briefing? Have any of you even met a president? How many of you have travelled to Iraq, and talked candidly with regular people? Are any of you members of a Skull and Bones type secret society, bent on political domination of the world? Anyone here sitting on the board of directors of OPEC?

Lets see a show of hands- how many of us own black helicopters?

Sorry to be a smart ass, but you can read, listen, and watch as many sources as your little heart desires and I am sure you still won't have a clue what is really going on in this world. We are the little people and we aren't in the loop. Democrats? Republicans? That sh!t doesn't mean a thing, and us fighting about which side is right don't mean sh!t either.

[subgenius88]

Don't even bother, Garr. If they've gone this long, they're hopeless.