Democratic leaders statements about Saddam and WMD

[Matt]

I saw this floating around on the internet and thought it was interesting:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 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."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the 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 and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 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."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is 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 we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 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, and 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 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. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[Rspaight]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

It's certainly a fact that Saddam used WMD in the past. It's only logical to conclude that (as of the time these statements were made) he either (a) had them or (b) wanted them.

I, for one, did not expect to find as little evidence of WMD in Iraq as we have. I don't think anyone expected us to come up as empty-handed as we have. So quoting a bunch of Democrats talking about Saddam's WMDs doesn't mean much -- *everyone* assumed he had *something.*

However, context is everything. Very few, if any, of the statements above were being made to support a unilateral invasion. The latest ones were informed by the intelligence reports we know now were either "juiced up" or from unreliable sources (Ahmed Chalabi, for one, who's still enjoying the fruits of his successful campaign to get the US to put him back into some sort of power in Iraq).

The controversy surrounding WMD, at least to my mind, isn't that we can't find them. That's surprising, but not scandalous. What bothers me is that the decision was made to unilaterally invade without clear proof of an imminent threat. Everyone assumed Saddam was hiding something, but no one knew sure what. Bush acted like he knew for sure, which many others did as well, but then he went a step further and waged war (against the wishes of most of the rest of the world) based on that ultimately mistaken knowledge. That's the scandal.

I don't think you could have found anyone outside of fringe groups that would have seriously claimed before the war that the only things we'd find were a couple of trailers of debatable purpose, an old centrifuge buried in a backyard for twelve years, and some Botox in a fridge. So why was everyone mistaken about this? That's a great question.

One possible reason is that Saddam was playing an enormously risky bluff. He wanted everyone to *think* he had significant WMD capability, so they wouldn't attack him. He knew how unpopular he was with the fundamentalist Arab movement, and a little psyops in the interest of scaring people off made sense.

The other I alluded to above -- we were being told stuff by people with a vested interest in the outcome. If an Iraqi exile wanted to get back into power, telling US intelligence about Saddam's WMDs was an excellent way to hitch a ride on the Iraqi Freedom Train.

In the end, though, we all got hoodwinked. But Bush is the one who ultimately decided to act on the intelligence in a big way. He rolled the dice, and they came up snake eyes. The fact that we went to war with no imminent threat is squarely on his shoulders.

As Bill O'Reilly said, "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it’s clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." At the time, it seemed like a safe statement.

Ryan