In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
I think jmel somehow utterly missed the boat.
All these politicians making statements about WMDs in Iraq? They're making these because the administration is telling them that based on what the agencies were telling the administration.
If I'm a congressman, and the President says "I have proof Iraq has WMDs," I couldn't dial up the CIA and get all the intelligence even if I wanted to.
The fact that Democrats voted for the war is completely f**king irrelevant if their vote was bought with sh!tty intelligence.
It was a war of choice, fought for the wrong reasons, and f**ked up so massively by the administration that it's just downright pathetic watching you try to blame Dems.
1. "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
Quoted on CNN
2. "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." âÂÂ President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Quoted on CNN
3. 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." âÂÂ Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio âÂÂ from USIA
4. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." âÂÂ Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998
Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio âÂÂ From USIA
5. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US 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." âÂÂ Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D âÂÂ MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others
6. "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." âÂÂ Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi âÂÂ House of Representatives website
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." âÂÂ Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
I've always said BOTH sides are to blame.
Clinton was wrong also. Iraq wasn't a national security threat to us or our allies.
Rather, Saddam was a threat to his people and surrounding arab countries. Iraq was a multi-faceted seat of genocide and attempted genocide run by a meglomaniac mass murderer. I would have far fewer gripes with the war if:
1. It was argued and its merits were judged on what they were: A humanitarian mission. An intervention. (Nevermind that we were far too late for the Kurds, by and large); more importantly
2. If it wasn't f**ked up so massively by the complete failure to consider the need to provide basic security in a country whose entire governmental apparatus just vanished. Starting with not dissolving the entire Iraqi army and turning 400,000+ pissed off people with weapons loose.
3. We didn't cut taxes then launch a war of choice. Taxes should have been raised before such a war of choice.
Instead, votes were bought with the WMD line, which proved to be false. Saddam used to have WMDs, yes, but we were two decades too late to stop his use of them.
And, as noted, the Bush administration utterly blew it from the get-go.
Nice revisionist history.