Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction



"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, Feb 18, 1998

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

"[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 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, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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,
December 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 is calculating 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

156 days to go..

In article , rgrew176
@aol.com says...
Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction

You've completely missed the point Dave. No one questions the
possibility the WMDs were there.

The complaint is how we went there to solve the problem. No consensus,
no coalition, no use of diplomacy.

A march to war on trumped up information (leave WMDs behind a moment),
beating the drums ever louder -- foregoing diplomatic resolutions for a
**** you, get out of my way, he's toast approach. It's the unilateral
approach that has America completely responsible militarily, monetarily,
ethically, morally responsible for the outcome. Our kids lives and our
cash at risk.

Bush is finally getting around to the true ambition of this
administration, to shove democracy down the throats of the mideast.

As many of the rec.boats contributors have been telling you and others,
the basis of this action can be found in the treatises written by the
political alliance known as Project for the New American Century.

It's based on the 1970s movement initiated by Kissinger and has as its
founding premise the idea that controlling the mideast is manditory if
the US expects to remain the only superpower. It's not about having
control of the oil product, it's about holding sway in the territory.
That insures it doesn't fall into the wrong hands and the ability to
have a hand in determining world oil pricing.

Now, you are finally hearing Bush's long term plan. It's not about
terrorism or Osama bin Laden. It's about influencing control over the
region.

So, the American public has been sold a bill of goods based on a
movement that was in place long before the events of 911. Bush and Rice
decided within days to use the events to draw Iraq into the the fray.


So, have fun pointing at trees Dave, but don't forget to notice the
forest.

jps wrote:

In article , rgrew176
@aol.com says...
Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction

You've completely missed the point Dave. No one questions the
possibility the WMDs were there.

Oh really? It was not that long ago that you were on that bandwagon
where you were claiming that there were no WMD and that the war "was all
about oil".



The complaint is how we went there to solve the problem. No consensus,
no coalition, no use of diplomacy.

We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in
the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France
Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us.


A march to war on trumped up information

According to which facts?


(leave WMDs behind a moment),
beating the drums ever louder -- foregoing diplomatic resolutions for a
**** you, get out of my way, he's toast approach.

Diplomacy had been going on for the last 12 years. Technically, since
the conditions of the UN resolution which ended the Gulf war, have been
violated, we were doing nothing more than finding Saddam in default, and
resuming what we stopped 12 years ago.


It's the unilateral
approach that has America completely responsible militarily, monetarily,
ethically, morally responsible for the outcome. Our kids lives and our
cash at risk.

Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your
premise is flawed.


Bush is finally getting around to the true ambition of this
administration, to shove democracy down the throats of the mideast.

And that's a bad thing? That people have self determination? Would they
rather have someone tell them what to do and threaten their families if
they don't?


As many of the rec.boats contributors have been telling you and others,
the basis of this action can be found in the treatises written by the
political alliance known as Project for the New American Century.

Even if true, what is fundamentally wrong with getting everyone on the
same page? There would be less potential for conflict if we were all
allowed the same freedoms.


It's based on the 1970s movement initiated by Kissinger and has as its
founding premise the idea that controlling the mideast is manditory if
the US expects to remain the only superpower.

Not exactly. It's not about US supremecy as it is about global cohesion.


It's not about having
control of the oil product, it's about holding sway in the territory.

What happened to your old "it's about the oil" cry?



That insures it doesn't fall into the wrong hands and the ability to
have a hand in determining world oil pricing.

Now, you are finally hearing Bush's long term plan. It's not about
terrorism or Osama bin Laden. It's about influencing control over the
region.

We don't "control" our own country. Control implies a dictatorship-like
regime. Establishing a freely elected democracy is hardly "controlling"
it. We might be pushing history along a little faster, but the end
result is worth it.


So, the American public has been sold a bill of goods based on a
movement that was in place long before the events of 911. Bush and Rice
decided within days to use the events to draw Iraq into the the fray.

Again, where are your facts? Who is your "deep throat"?


So, have fun pointing at trees Dave, but don't forget to notice the
forest.


I find it curious, although not that all surprising that you don't find
it the least bit disengenuous that those quoted people have shifted
their viewpoints so radically and in such a partisan way.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in
the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France
Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us.

A coalition could be considered:
1) Other countries sending soldiers.
2) Other countries sending any other kind of material assistance.

Spain sent a hospital ship, which I understand made a great contribution.
The British sent troops. Recently, Poland and Ukraine have assisted with
security.

A coalition is NOT:
1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly
criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial
aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn.

So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a
"coalition"?



Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your
premise is flawed.

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some
history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present day,
you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S.
president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special
relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't
cooperate.

Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2?

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in
the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France
Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us.

A coalition could be considered:
1) Other countries sending soldiers.
2) Other countries sending any other kind of material assistance.

Spain sent a hospital ship, which I understand made a great contribution.
The British sent troops. Recently, Poland and Ukraine have assisted with
security.

A coalition is NOT:
1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly
criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial
aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn.

So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a
"coalition"?

Why, it would be identical with the way the Bush Administration
describes it, of course. Dave is a mindless supporter of and beliver in
the Bush Administration.







--
Email sent to is never read.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:16:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain.

Don't forget the Australians. They had special forces in Iraq. Still,
way short of 40 countries.

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:16:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain.

Don't forget the Australians. They had special forces in Iraq. Still,
way short of 40 countries.


It was a misuse of the word "coalition" from the get-go. The current
Bush-shippers were trying to get the public to recall the "coalition"
put together by Bush I, which truly was a coalition, and to conclude
that a similar worldwide effort was taking place in 2003. The current
Bush-shippers love to play word games with Boobus Americanus and, as you
can see by the posts of many of the right-wingers here, they are successful.

There are very, very few "coalition" forces in Iraq these days, and this
is a direct result of the failure of the Bush-shippers "diplomatic"
efforts and their failure and unwillingness to get the UN directly
involved in a major way.

In fact, the current Bush-shippers offered some major bribes to
potential "coalition" forces to get them to commit troops. In almost all
cases, the offer of bribery failed.

Bush himself is a liar, a coward, and a cheat of the first magnitude.
These days he may be "loyal" to his wife, but he certainly isn't loyal
to what have been considered the traditional American virtues and
values. The idiot has eroded our position all over the world.

He will be recalled years from now as one of the worst presidents in the
history of the United States.

But, hey, he does give his fellow right-wingers The Big Erection.







--
Email sent to is never read.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:16:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the
first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in
addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain.

Don't forget the Australians. They had special forces in Iraq. Still,
way short of 40 countries.

Right. I forgot them. That makes 4 countries. Maybe Dave's right about a
coalition.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in
the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France
Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us.

A coalition could be considered:
1) Other countries sending soldiers.
2) Other countries sending any other kind of material assistance.

Spain sent a hospital ship, which I understand made a great contribution.
The British sent troops. Recently, Poland and Ukraine have assisted with
security.

Then there is Italy and Australia. Turkey provided some support as
well. How many countries does it take to be considered a "coalition" by
your definition?


A coalition is NOT:
1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly
criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial
aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn.

And I can find this in which dictionary? Or are you speculating again?



So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a
"coalition"?

A group of countries united toward a common goal.



Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your
premise is flawed.

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some
history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present day,
you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S.
president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special
relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't
cooperate.

Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2?


Does it really matter?

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Then there is Italy and Australia. Turkey provided some support as
well. How many countries does it take to be considered a "coalition" by
your definition?

Turkey wanted to send troops, against our wishes, because we felt it would
cause friction with the Kurds, remember? Turkey was ****ed off at us for
months. If I recall, they didn't even want us using their air space.



A coalition is NOT:
1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly
criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of
financial
aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn.

And I can find this in which dictionary? Or are you speculating again?

You want a dictionary which tells you what a word does NOT mean???

Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia
negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca plants
and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return, unless
they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of the
coalition?



So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of
a
"coalition"?

A group of countries united toward a common goal.

But, what about the specific "40" figure? That's what your president is
claiming.



Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your
premise is flawed.

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the
first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in
addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some
history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present
day,
you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S.
president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special
relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't
cooperate.

Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2?


Does it really matter?

It certainly does matter, if a large portion of the American people believe
that 40 countries are behind this. No aspect of a war should be built on
lies.