Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Rebuttal: Video clips showing Democrats saying Saddam had WMDs.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Activism » Propaganda Debunking Group Donate to DU
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-21-08 08:52 AM
Original message
Rebuttal: Video clips showing Democrats saying Saddam had WMDs.
Edited on Mon Apr-21-08 08:53 AM by Lasher
The liemail in question:

Subject: Bush's war???

Here's a video compilation you definitely won't see on main stream media. The next time you hear the expression "Bush's war" remember this and note that there's no "opinion", just direct video which deserves wide distribution.

Click the link below.

I drew heavily from this William Pitt article to develop the following rebuttal:

The pretzel logic here is straightforward: Clinton and other Democrats thought the stuff was there, and that justifies the claims made by the Bush crew about Iraqi weapons.

Clinton and his crew had every reason to believe Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction during the 1990s. For one thing, they knew this because the previous two administrations - Reagan and Bush 41 - actively assisted the Hussein regime in the development of these programs. In other words, we had the receipts.

After the first Gulf War, the United Nations implemented a series of weapons inspections under the banner of UNSCOM, and scoured Iraq for both weapons and weapons production facilities. They lifted bombed buildings off their foundations and used a wide range of detection technologies. After seven years of work, they disarmed Iraq.

Former UNSCOM chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter spent seven years in Iraq searching out and destroying weapons and weapons manufacturing capabilities. "After 1998," Ritter reports in a book titled, War on Iraq, "Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed. What this means is that 90%-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability, including all of their factories used to produce chemical, biological, nuclear long-range ballistic missiles, the associated equipment of these factories, and the vast majority of the product produced by these factories, had been verifiably eliminated."

"Now, there are those who say that the Iraqis could have hid some of this from us," continued Ritter. "The problem with that scenario is that once we blew up the Muthanna State establishment, they no longer had the ability to produce new agent, and in five years science takes over. Sarin and tabun will degrade and become useless sludge. It's no longer a viable chemical agent that the world needs to be concerned about."

By 1998 those facilities had been destroyed and any weapons that might have been stashed away were pudding by 2003, a fact that weapons inspections in 2003 could have easily established (and did establish, thanks to Bush's inspector, Dr. David Kay, who bluntly stated after the killing had begun that the stuff wasn't there).

Clinton did not invade Iraq and throw the United States into a ridiculous, endless, bloody quagmire. He managed to disarm Hussein without taking this disastrous step. There is evidence that the Bush administration knew this:

He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq... Colin Powell, February 24, 2001 in Cairo, Egypt

He (Saddam) does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. Condoleezza Rice, July 29, 2001 on CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

You can watch a video clip of Powell and Rice saying these things here:

But after 9/11/01 the administrations rhetoric changed sharply, in support of the neocons dreams of invading Iraq:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. - Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Condoleezza Rice, September 8, 2002

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. - George Bush March 18, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad. - Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

And so, Clinton and other Democrats were correct to have said during 1998 that Saddam had WMDs. He did, and Clintons efforts to destroy all of them were nearing successful completion just about then. We know Bush was aware in 2001 that Saddam then had no significant WMD capability because two of his top officials said so. It is true that some gullible Democrats were caught up in the Bush administrations post-9/11 WMD lies, but neither Clinton nor Congressional Democrats lied us into the invasion of Iraq. And they didnt pull the trigger. Dick Cheney and George Bush did.

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-02-08 05:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Ha ha, a right winger just sent me the video.
Glad I posted the rebuttal here so that I didn't have to start from scratch.

Vanity kick because the same video is making its rounds again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct 22nd 2017, 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Activism » Propaganda Debunking Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC