Claiming Saddam had WMD's in the 1990's is not the same as

[mzmolly]

CLAIMING HE HAD NUKES!

During Operation Desert Fox Clinton bombed what were thought to be weapons facilities in Iraq. At THAT time Democrats believed that SH had weaponry that was a harm to our allies in the area. Republicans screamed wag the dog, yet use quotes from Democrats in that era, to claim that Dems thought that Saddam was also a threat.

There is a huge distinction here, and the Repugs are spinning like mad to try and save Bush's ass after Dems demanded an investigation yesterday.

Bush said SADDAM HAD NUKES, and WE'RE NOT GOING TO WAIT FOR A MUSHROOM CLOUD, and SADDAM IS CONNECTED TO 911.

Let's not forget the distinctions between WMD's (which encompass many different weapons groups) and Bush's faux claims.

[wookie294]

1. Exactly !!

:toast:

And inspections were going well in March 2003...

In March 2003 the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said “at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.”

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

[mzmolly]

2. Yep, and BUSH kicked out weapons inspectors, not SADDAM.

GRRR.

Thanks for the reminder.

[wookie294]

3. I like this opinion poll

49% Say Bush Responsible for Provoking Iraq War

44% Say Hussein

June 23, 2005--Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans say that President Bush is more responsible for starting the War with Iraq than Saddam Hussein. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 44% take the opposite view and believe Hussein shoulders most of the responsibility.

In late 2002, months before the fighting began, most Americans thought that Hussein was the one provoking the War. Just one-in-four thought the President was doing the provoking at that time.

The biggest change in perceptions has come among Democrats.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Provoking%20War.htm

Rasmussen is a Republican pollster!

[mzmolly]

4. Ohhhhhhhhhh, that's good stuff.

Finally!

[blm]

19. Both excellent points that are often overlooked. TOO often.

.

[mzmolly]

21. Thanky.

:hi: Agreed.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. He didn't even have WMD, so what's the difference?

[MsKandice01]

6. That's what I was thinking...

There were no WMDs period...nukes or no nukes.

[wookie294]

8. Yes, but Dems in Congress never said Saddam had nukes

... to the best of my recollection.

It was the nuclear bomb that scared Americans the most. Without that lie, Bush may not have got his war.

[VolcanoJen]

16. Exactly. And this is another fact we should all be aware of now...

... the fact that nobody before the Bush Cabal ever claimed Saddaam was seeking uranium from Niger.

[mzmolly]

17. That's right! And NOBODY else claimed a connection to Osama.

And/or 911, which conveniently happened on Bush's watch.

[mzmolly]

The war was based on the NUKE claim. Also Saddam was thought

to have WMD's at one time. Repukes use quotes from before Saddam was "disarmed" and say "see everyone thought X." They ignore the NUKE claim made by the Bush admin.

[mzmolly]

7. The difference is that in the 1990's before Bill Clinton initiated

operation desert fox Democrats believed "on the record" that Saddam had WMD's. After sanctions and targeted bombings in the late 1990's Saddam was said to be disarmed by inspectors.

Hannity and the gang pull out quotes from early 1998 and say "see, EVERYONE thought Saddam had XYZ." Additionally there is a huge difference between mustard gas and nukes when it comes to our national security.

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. Blix was well on his way to answering that one. I recall that his mission

was cut short by a trigger happy chimp.

[mzmolly]

14. Yep that's right.

:(

[Ignacio Upton]

28. Do you remember when the Defense Department said we

needed to go in because the weather would be getting warmer and harm American machinery?

[The_Casual_Observer]

30. The war was scheduled for March 2003 back in October 2001

I figure. To get it over with before the summer. It was widely reported at the time that they "couldn't wait much longer, or it will be too hot".

[Ignacio Upton]

35. I still remember that quote, and Wes Clakr himself said that was their rea

son for going in in March 2003. They could have just waited for Blix's next report and let the UN continue.

[Ignacio Upton]

27. Some of those quotes are also taken from Al Gore and Ted Kennedy

who, even when given the same information that the public got, opposed the war. The Freepers are lying their asses off.

[Snotcicles]

9. No matter they lead us to believe both.

[mzmolly]

10. But they had to pull out a nuclear threat to get Dems to comply.

They played on the worst fears of Americans.

[Snotcicles]

22. Yes and that is terrorism. Using fear to get what you want.

[mzmolly]

23. It sure is.

:(

[wtmusic]

12. At this point anyone who believes he had WMDs when we invaded

has a SERIOUS denial problem, and should seek immediate help.

[VolcanoJen]

13. Yes! Also, who before the Bush Cabal claimed "stockpiles"?

Stockpiles of chemical weapons, they claimed. Stockpiles and more stockpiles. We know where they are, claimed Rumsfeld. They are to the north, east, west and somewhat southwest of Bagdad or other such nonsense.

Nobody before the Bush Cabal claimed "stockpiles" or "where to find them."

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[mzmolly]

15. They are somewhere near Tikrit, right?

Laugh or cry? Somedays I don't know.

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. "Saddam HAS reconstituted his nuclear weapons programs!"

-cheney sometime prior to the invasion of Iraq.

[mzmolly]

20. Yup.

:hi:

[Mike03]

24. Yep

Cheney said that, and he said there was "No Doubt" that this was so.

The line about not allowing the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud was repeated by a number of people in the administration as well.

Same for the yellowcake threat.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. Rumsfeld went on "Meet the Press"

and said they knew exactly where they were: in Baghdad. So where are they Rummy? :mad:

[wookie294]

25. Cheney's other lie -- Linking Saddam to 9/11

In 2001, Dick Cheney said it was "confirmed that (Mohammed Atta) did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the (Sept. 11) attack." See link...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said no Prague meeting ever took place between Atta and Saddam’s intelligence service. See link…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/alqaeda.html

Czech government retracts claims of Atta in Prague….

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/2155.html

No evidence of Prague meeting….

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/18/wirq18.xml

Even Cheney later said: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134636,00.html

LOL! Arm yourselves with facts!

[Ignacio Upton]

26. He had WMD's in the early-mid 1990's, but not in 2002

He did NOT have mobile Biological labs!
He did NOT have connections with Osama or involvement in 9/11!
He did NOT have nukes!
He did NOT have drones capable of hitting NYC!
He did NOT have stockpiles in large numbers of chemical and biological weapons. The only "WMD's" he had left were poorly accounted for shells that were randomly scattered across Iraq from the Iran-Iraq War. For example, we found a Sarin Nerve Gas Shell in May 2004 that was from twenty years ago.

[mzmolly]

37. Yep egggzactly.

:hi:

[FreedomAngel82]

29. Didn't Saddam destroy everything in the mid 90's?

I remember reading that Saddam destroyed everything in the mid 90's and he was corporating with the UN inspectors so he obviously had nothing to hide if they were corporating and the statement of Bush's about him getting materials from Niger was a lie. And don't forget who gave them to him.

[wookie294]

31. Yes, and chemical weapons were destroyed in 1991

Here's what Bush's people concluded after the long search for WMD....

No nuclear weapons program: "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html#sect1

No chemical weapons program: "ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter…."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0

No biological weapons program: "ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap6.html#sect0
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

[FreedomAngel82]

34. Thanks for those

Now if some rightwinger tries to use that line on me I'll be armed. :)

[Ignacio Upton]

33. Most of his stuff was destroyed in the mid 90's, and completely in 1998

when Clinton bombed a handful of third-rate facilities in Operation Desert Fox. In February 2001, Powell even said that Iraq posed no threat! Also, read the reports made by David Kay and Charles Duelfer, who each concluded that Saddam did not have an large arsenal.

[The_Casual_Observer]

36. If Clinton had invaded Iraq, he would have been wrong too.

However, he didn't invade Iraq.

[mzmolly]

38. That's right! n/t