The Return of Al Qaeda

[Saddle Bronc 124]

oh i very much am intrested. but, iraq isn't all on bush. the others in washington also voted to go to war on the same info bush had. now they want to "cut & run", w/o taking any responsibility for their actions. thats why i asked for the cliff notes. i want to know, if its a real viable plan or more democratic bs pointing the finger across the aisle. when their just a guilty of getting us into this as bush. and like i said the extremist want world domination & no comprimise will ever be possible. get use to it, this war against terrorism (where ever the front line is) will not end in our life time.

Do you think that Iraq has made things better or worse as far as fundamentalist terrorism is concerned?

It has brought them out of the darkness. Have you even seen what a bus load or market place of blown up women and children looks like. Is that Bush's fault as well?

Someone has to roll up their sleeves to get the dirty jobs done in this world. Al Qaeda is like a cancer. Until they are all killed we should never stop fighting them at every corner of the earth.

Though Zawahiri may have (as of yesterday) signed the groups death-warrant by declaring jihad against Pakistan (AQ was seeded by that country's mil-intel/government during Gen. Zia's time; turning on their first benefactor may well be their demise).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It has brought them out of the darkness. Have you even seen what a bus load or market place of blown up women and children looks like. Is that Bush's fault as well?

Someone has to roll up their sleeves to get the dirty jobs done in this world. Al Qaeda is like a cancer. Until they are all killed we should never stop fighting them at every corner of the earth.

The point is - if that sort of fundamentalism was there to begin with, it was effectively contained by the (secular) military regime. All the conflict has done is kick over the anthill and start a bigger fire.

As to what we should do now - rather more difficult to say. Other than that we have noticeably fewer options now than we did before.

[GaryC 7]

It has brought them out of the darkness. Have you even seen what a bus load or market place of blown up women and children looks like. Is that Bush's fault as well?

Someone has to roll up their sleeves to get the dirty jobs done in this world. Al Qaeda is like a cancer. Until they are all killed we should never stop fighting them at every corner of the earth.

The point is - if that sort of fundamentalism was there to begin with, it was effectively contained by the (secular) military regime. All the conflict has done is kick over the anthill and start a bigger fire.

As to what we should do now - rather more difficult to say. Other than that we have noticeably fewer options now than we did before.

To extend your metaphor, it was better when the ants were underground and we didn't see them?

[smoke20 0]

oh i very much am intrested. but, iraq isn't all on bush. the others in washington also voted to go to war on the same info bush had. now they want to "cut & run", w/o taking any responsibility for their actions. thats why i asked for the cliff notes. i want to know, if its a real viable plan or more democratic bs pointing the finger across the aisle. when their just a guilty of getting us into this as bush. and like i said the extremist want world domination & no comprimise will ever be possible. get use to it, this war against terrorism (where ever the front line is) will not end in our life time.

Do you think that Iraq has made things better or worse as far as fundamentalist terrorism is concerned?

probably worse but bush isn't the only one that is to blame for iraq.

[Heracles 417]

How bout we remove our troops from countries that don't want us there, stop supporting Israel and pay attention to our own country for once!!!!

The US tried that during the Israel / Hezbollah conflict. Once again they where to blamed for not interfering.

As I have asked before if the US cut off 'all' ties from the middle east, banned travel and neither sold nor imported any of their goods; would that region be peaceful??

They don't want to talk about that. They have their talking points and anything that does not fit those are dismissed. They have no plan with the exception of blaming Bush. Thats quite a plan. Blame Bush, it fixes everything.

There is always someone or something to blame, be it fascist or capitalist. People forget how WWI & WWII was supposed to be the wars to end all wars.

I read the attached PLAN from ET. That looks like a nice theoretical thesis from a bunch of analysts. All good and well in theory but not practical in reality. Especially when fighting against fundamentalist beliefs. If they had any reasoning or logic in the first place they would not have become a fundamentalist. On top of that these groups feel they are carrying out a holy plan. There is absolutely no negotiating with that.

[GaryC 7]

Remind me again: Who is the "commander guy"? And who in Congress pushed him to go into Iraq?

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002

"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

John Kerry > January 23, 2003

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998

"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002

"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 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, 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."

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. 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."

Al Gore > September 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."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

####### Gephardt > September 23, 2002

"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002

"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003

"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

John Kerry > January 31, 2003

"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein

is a threat with nuclear weapons, then

you shouldn't vote for me."

Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002

"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998

"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998

"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998

"f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 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."

Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 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."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry > October 9, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002

"There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002

Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002

"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

####### Durbin > September 30, 1999

"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002

"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam

has chemical and biological weapons,

and I expect that he is trying to develop

a nuclear weapon. So at some point,

we might have to act precipitously."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002

"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002

"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case

needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003

"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003

"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 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."

John Kerry > February 23, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Are you going to blame all these people here also? They voted to go into Iraq, they wanted Saddam out. They did what they thought was right and when they thought it was politically expedient they turn coated. And you bought into it.

[Heracles 417]

Though Zawahiri may have (as of yesterday) signed the groups death-warrant by declaring jihad against Pakistan (AQ was seeded by that country's mil-intel/government during Gen. Zia's time; turning on their first benefactor may well be their demise).

That goes to show it is not a battle against Islam but a battle against the cancer that has attached itself to Islam. The other day AQ said the same thing about Iran.

[smoke20 0]

There isn't a lack of an actual plan, there is a lack of willingness in this administration to admit that it royally fcuked up and a stubbornly ignorant insistence - an insane insistence, really - to keep digging to get out of the hole they dug us into to begin with. Click on the link and read from page 33 onward if you're interested in what true experts consider and recommended as a viable approach.

ok that 50 or so pages i'm at work. can you give me the cliff notes? and highlight the part where we all convert to islamic law-coz thats the only way the BS will stop.

Read it when you have time.

ok i'll do that. but, if it doesn't contain a plan for the entire world living under islamic law, it won't work.

So, you're not interested in a serious debate on the way out of the clusterfcuk that Bush has managed to make out of Iraq. That's fine. But then please don't pretend that you are.

oh i very much am intrested. but, iraq isn't all on bush. the others in washington also voted to go to war on the same info bush had.

Remind me again: Who is the "commander guy"? And who in Congress pushed him to go into Iraq?

Besides, right or wrong, good or bad, we're there. It is hard to dispute that this war has been grossly mismanaged. Who manages the war? Congress? I don't think so.

You were asking for an alternative and viable plan forward. It's there. And Bush thumbs his arrogant nose at it and prefers to be his idiotic stubborn self and continue on a path that has yielded zero results thus far in terms of stabilizing Iraq or fighting terrorism.

george bush is the commander guy.

sec of defense & generals not bush.

gimmie the damn cliff notes please- i'm at work.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There isn't a lack of an actual plan, there is a lack of willingness in this administration to admit that it royally fcuked up and a stubbornly ignorant insistence - an insane insistence, really - to keep digging to get out of the hole they dug us into to begin with. Click on the link and read from page 33 onward if you're interested in what true experts consider and recommended as a viable approach.

ok that 50 or so pages i'm at work. can you give me the cliff notes? and highlight the part where we all convert to islamic law-coz thats the only way the BS will stop.

Read it when you have time.

ok i'll do that. but, if it doesn't contain a plan for the entire world living under islamic law, it won't work.

So, you're not interested in a serious debate on the way out of the clusterfcuk that Bush has managed to make out of Iraq. That's fine. But then please don't pretend that you are.

oh i very much am intrested. but, iraq isn't all on bush. the others in washington also voted to go to war on the same info bush had.

Remind me again: Who is the "commander guy"? And who in Congress pushed him to go into Iraq?

Here is your list. You want the litany of quotes of dems that called for Saddam's ouster?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00237

Calling for Saddam's ouster is one thing. I remember that the resolution that was passed in Congress authorized the use of force as a last resort and stipulated an international approach. Bush's marching orders did not fulfill either of these pre-requisites. And Bush clearly lacked a viable post Saddam plan when he sent the boys in. Collecting the flowers the Iraqis would throw our way was about as much of a plan as he had. That naive little #######.

[smoke20 0]

Remind me again: Who is the "commander guy"? And who in Congress pushed him to go into Iraq?

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002

"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

John Kerry > January 23, 2003

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998

"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002

"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 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, 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."

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. 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."

Al Gore > September 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."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

####### Gephardt > September 23, 2002

"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002

"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003

"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

John Kerry > January 31, 2003

"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein

is a threat with nuclear weapons, then

you shouldn't vote for me."

Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002

"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998

"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998

"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998

"f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 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."

Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 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."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry > October 9, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002

"There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002

Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002

"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

####### Durbin > September 30, 1999

"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002

"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam

has chemical and biological weapons,

and I expect that he is trying to develop

a nuclear weapon. So at some point,

we might have to act precipitously."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002

"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002

"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case

needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003

"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003

"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 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."

John Kerry > February 23, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Are you going to blame all these people here also? They voted to go into Iraq, they wanted Saddam out. They did what they thought was right and when they thought it was politically expedient they turn coated. And you bought into it.

THANK YOU GARY!!

[GaryC 7]

Calling for Saddam's ouster is one thing. I remember that the resolution that was passed in Congress authorized the use of force as a last resort and stipulated an international approach. Bush's marching orders did not fulfill either of these pre-requisites. And Bush clearly lacked a viable post Saddam plan when he sent the boys in. Collecting the flowers the Iraqis would throw our way was about as much of a plan as he had. That naive little #######.

I'll hand it to you ET. You have your head firmly in the sand and you just don't want to see anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. Your bent on blaming Bush and nothing will deter you. Your not anti-war, your just anti-Bush. It clouds everything else you do.

[GaryC 7]

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton

President of the United States

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Is this Bush's fault? Did he lie to these people also? (hint, look at the date)

[Heracles 417]

Calling for Saddam's ouster is one thing. I remember that the resolution that was passed in Congress authorized the use of force as a last resort and stipulated an international approach. Bush's marching orders did not fulfill either of these pre-requisites. And Bush clearly lacked a viable post Saddam plan when he sent the boys in. Collecting the flowers the Iraqis would throw our way was about as much of a plan as he had. That naive little #######.

George Bush was not appointed to stabilize and run Iraq.

This proposal about seeking greater help from the international community is a bunch of hogwash. If they wanted to help they would have done so by now. The current Iraqi government is a sovereign government. They could have offered their services and assistance to them.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Infidel

[Marc and Olga 0]

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton

President of the United States

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Is this Bush's fault? Did he lie to these people also? (hint, look at the date)

Forget the date, look at the names.... coincidence? I'm sure I am skipping a few but I think I hit the big ones

[GaryC 7]

Forget the date, look at the names.... coincidence? I'm sure I am skipping a few but I think I hit the big ones

It just shows that it was a widespread opinion. Both sides wanted Saddam removed. What, if a righty agreed that means it is false? Your dodging the facts again.