Here's a larger list of quotes from Democrats back in 1998 (pre-George W. Bush for those who are not politically astute) as an alternative option to the video.
Are these lefty looney liberals lazy or what? Are they not serious on wanting to make sure by checking up on facts about what was said on the WMDs in support of attacking Iraq back in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 by Democrats ? Heck, here is your chance with President Clinton who was practically waving his hands and arms in 1998 that we should attack Iraq with his famous quote in 1998:
Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Nuclear, eh? Not yellowcake? But nuclear? Face it liberals, with you going with the "Bush lied" meme simply does not hold water. Not only does it not hold water, it makes you look like a full-blown idiot like a deer caught in the headlights before getting mowed down. Step off of the road pronto before you get smashed.
Hat tip: DEFCON
UPDATE: Here's a Bush-Clinton-Perot presidential debate in October 19, 1992 that's telling of Clinton's stance about Iraq.
CLINTON: Let's take Mr. Bush for the moment at his word -- he's right, we don't have any evidence at least that our government did tell Saddam Hussein he could have that part of Kuwait. And let's give him the credit he deserves for organizing Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. It was a remarkable event.
But let's look at where I think the real mistake was made. In 1988 when the war between Iraq and Iran ended, we knew Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, we had dealt with him because he was against Iran -- the enemy of my enemy maybe is my friend.
All right, the war's over; we know he's dropping mustard gas on his own people, we know he's threatened to incinerate half of Israel. Several government departments -- several -- had information that he was converting our aid to military purposes and trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.
But in late '89 the president signed a secret policy saying we were going to continue to try to improve relations with him, and we sent him some sort of communication on the eve of his invasion of Kuwait that we still wanted better relations.
So I think what was wrong -- I give credit where credit is due -- but the responsibility was in coddling Saddam Hussein when there was no reason to do it and when people at high levels in our government knew he was trying to do things that were outrageous.
LEHRER: Mr. President, you have a moment -- a minute, I'm sorry.
BUSH: Well, it's awful easy when you're dealing with 90-90 hindsight. We did try to bring Saddam Hussein into the family of nations; he did have the 4th largest army. All our Arab allies out there thought we ought to do just exactly that. And when he crossed the line, I stood up and looked into the camera and I said: This aggression will not stand. And we formed a historic coalition, and we brought him down, and we destroyed the 4th largest army. And the battlefield was searched, and there wasn't one single iota of evidence that any US weapons were on that battlefield. And the nuclear capability has been searched by the United Nations, and there hasn't been one single scintilla of evidence that there's any US technology involved in it.
And what you're seeing on all this Iraqgate is a bunch of people who were wrong on the war trying to cover their necks and try to do a little revisionism. And I cannot let that stand, because it isn't true.
Yes, we had grain credits for Iraq, and there isn't any evidence that those grain credits were diverted into weaponry -- none, none whatsoever.
(APPLAUSE)
And so I just have to say, it's fine. You can't stand there, Governor Clinton, and say, well, I think I'd have been -- I have supported the minority, let sanctions work or wish it would go away -- but I would have voted with the majority. Come on, that's not leadership.
Ok. Fast forward when Clinton was President and his remarks on Saddam Hussein's WMDs in a February 17, 1998 speech but see (in blue) the above remark and below (in blue) on how both Presidents wanted to see diplomatic solutions or improve relations with Saddam prior to striking Iraq:
In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.
Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.
This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.
Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions. By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.
The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.
The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.
It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.
But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.
Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.
Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.
I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds.
We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
The above quote in purple provides the most damning evidence of President Clinton's belief on what would happen if we don't act upon in getting Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions. Clinton believed that more WMDs exist among Saddam's copious palaces and elsewhere. In the last paragraph above provides his internal belief that Saddam will in fact use his WMDs once given the chance.
So, President Bush lied about WMDs? How else would we enforce Saddam? More sanctions? Yeah, right. The only thing left is to go back in and finally get rid of Saddam. Those UNSCOM workers would take years and years just to investigate one of Saddam's palaces that's about the size of Washington D.C. that President Clinton quoted in the above speech I provided.
Oh, please, you lefty liberal loonies. Take a look at Clinton's quotes one more time when Clinton's own WMDs information were the same as President George W. Bush'. Stop with the inanities that Bush lied about WMDs.
STOP THE INANITIES!
|