Lack of Indisputable Evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction


Reviews for Lack of Indisputable Evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction  1-10 OF 23  ( NEXT 10)

Browse next item:
Loss of Life
Sort items by:
Drummond  (48)   on 03/05/2006 12:15PM, said:

If we are going to go to war in violation of the international law we wrote, we ought to be damned sure. It's not enough to say "we had bad intelligence," or "everybody thought he had them." War is an extreme act that is made when every alternative possibility has been exhausted, and when we are ABSOLUTELY certain of the basis for war. Updating after reading some of the reviews. I do find it amusing that so many war supporters who hated Clinton are now trying to hide behind him. Fact is, that was then, this is now. It's not a question of what was in the country in 1995, or just before the carpet bombings in 1998. What matters is whether we had the information to justify a conclusion that we were absolutely certain of WMD presence in 2003, and more to the point, whether Iraq presented any danger to national security at the time. It turns out, they weren't even a danger to Kuwait at that point.

(1 people found this comment helpful, 0 did not)

ClassicTVFan47  (35)   on 10/27/2005 9:30PM, said:

They are there or have been there. As early as 1998, both the Washington Post and the New York Times believed so. So did England, France (!), and numerous people in the Clinton (!!) administration. No doubt they are buried, or hidden in Syria--another country in the Axis of Evil.

(3 people found this comment helpful, 4 did not)

GenghisTheHun  (106)   on 10/26/2005 10:02PM, said:

On this list, this is the top reason. We now see it as a mistake. Let's admit it and start the withdrawal.

(5 people found this comment helpful, 4 did not)

aWiseguy  (49)   on 10/10/2005 4:27PM, said:

Either Bill Clinton is not telling the truth now about the terrorist threat posed by Iraq during his administration - or he fibbed to the American people while he was in the White House. Clinton recently told his former staffer-turned TV commentator George Stephanopoulos that the U.S. government had "no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. But a recent report in the The Weekly Standard headlined "Clinton Revisionism" unmasks Clinton's flip-flops over the Iraq weapons of mass destruction issue. For example, during an appearance on "Larry King Live" back in July 2003, the former president said: "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." In October of that year, six months after the war ended, Clinton discussed Iraq with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Barroso said: "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime." Last month Clinton discussed the Iraq war with Wolf Blitzer and told him: "I never thought it had much to do with the war on terror." In a February 1998 speech warning of an "unholy axis" of terrorists and rogue states, Clinton stated: "There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq." That summer six senior Clinton officials accused Iraq of providing chemical weapons expertise to al-Qaida in Sudan. The Clinton administration cited this link to justify the destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan supposedly involved in the production of chemical weapons. Clinton's revisionism is hardly surprising. He has his wife's future in an increasingly anti-war Democratic Party to worry about.

(3 people found this comment helpful, 2 did not)

middlefinger  (3)   on 01/17/2005 5:54PM, said:

Bush lied to the American people. For that he should be impeached.

(4 people found this comment helpful, 2 did not)

abichara  (48)   on 12/12/2004 9:45PM, said:

No doubt Saddam Hussein had significant weapons stockpiles...12 to 15 years ago. How do we know? Let's take a look at the history; Saddam used chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980's. He fired long range scud missiles at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel during the Gulf War; thus confirming that he is a threat to the security regime of the Middle East. After that, Saddam consistently violated the terms of the UN backed peace deal which in effect disarmed him for being a threat to regional security. He fired anti-aircraft weapons on American and British peacekeepers patrolling the UN imposed no-fly zone constantly for 10 years. Then in 1998, Saddam declared that he would no longer allow UN weapons inspectors to travel the country in search of WMD's, which they had found in vast quantities earlier. By that point, the country was by and large disarmed and no longer a real threat to the Middle East. US deterrence through an enforced no fly zone had all but completely crippled Hussein militarily--our strategy was working. Bush justified his case by claiming that he was violating UN resolutions by not permitting weapons inspectors into his nation; the question is whether or not a political solution was possible and if Bush was truly amenable to it. I believe that we could have negotiated one from a position of strength, but the mentality of many in the Bush administration was that with Saddam gone, our problems will disappear in the Middle East, so why bother go through the motions. Given some of the nations like Iran and even Syria which form a higher comparative threat, why would we choose to attack this nation? The claptrap that Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction ready to consort with terrorists himself doesn't fly either. Yes, he was a problem, but overthrowing him at the end of the day has created an even bigger potential weapon of mass destruction, Iraq as an actual staging ground for terrorist insurgencies and access to weapons caches that the Hussein regime had throughout the country. Indeed a tough place to be in today, now the cat is out of the hat.

(4 people found this comment helpful, 0 did not)

Psalmy  (0)   on 11/27/2004 8:33AM, said:

the most compelling reason for me is the presence of wmd's. The President went on what he knew. The intellegence reports that HE seen. I would rather have a President that acted for the saftey of his people first, before succumbing to the desires of the foreign leaders. After 9-11, no precautions should have been taken lightly. NONE. Therefore that is my reason for supporting this war on terror with or without WMD's.

(1 people found this comment helpful, 3 did not)

Ruby  (10)   on 10/22/2004 4:22PM, said:

Per the UN resolutions, it was up to Iraq to prove it was in compliance with requirements that it disarm. They didn't do that. If there werent WMD, it seems remarkably STUPID that they didn't do that.... but this is still a bad reason to be anti-war.

(1 people found this comment helpful, 4 did not)

ironlaw  (0)   on 05/31/2004 2:23AM, said:

We know he has'em. We sold'em to him.

(1 people found this comment helpful, 0 did not)

DickWeener  (0)   on 01/04/2004 11:52AM, said:

We should have used Weapons of mass destruction and never re-built them. They want to live like animals, they want to worship their leaders that are insane, they are the diease we should have been the cure and just wiped them out and been done with it.

(1 people found this comment helpful, 5 did not)

1-10 OF 23  ( NEXT 10) View All

Stay Involved with this Item