User:Noroton/Iraq consensus notes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pre-Iraq War consensus on the danger from Iraq in the United States had developed into a consensus (not without dissent) that Saddam Hussein's regime was a potential danger to the United States and the world.

This belief, in turn, stemmed from a consensus that Saddam's tyrannical regime desired weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the widespread misperception that he already had chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. These beliefs played a crucial role in creating support for the Iraq War. Statements from the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives who had reviewed the information presented to them by these administrations, and editorials from influential newspapers all mentioned Saddam in conjunction with the possibility he would renew his past aggression. However, belief in a danger from Saddam's regime did not automatically translate in support for overthrowing it, as numerous other factors weighed in on the decision to initiate such a conflict. Since the war, numerous American officials have changed their opinions in light of the revelation that no significant stockpiles of WMDs were found. Some have accused the Bush administration of lying about whether it believed Saddam's regime had WMDs or of exaggerating evidence that pointed toward the continuing existence of Iraqi WMDs.

Contents

[edit] Use of Democratic statements by Iraqi War supporters

Supporters of the Iraq War have noted the statements numerous Democrats and others that emphasized the danger of Saddam and WMDs in the past while the people or institutions who made those statements later opposed the Iraq War. A series of similar statements from Democrats has been reproduced numerous times on American right-wing Internet blogs and Web sites,[1] [2] [3] [4] and similar statements have appeared in opinion articles (in print and online) by Iraq War supporters.[5] [6] [7]

For instance, Michael Barone, a columnist for U.S. News, wrote, "They [Democrats in Congress] talk [. . .] about George Bush's war, even though most Democratic senators and nearly half of House Democrats voted to authorize it and -- remember? -- said that they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."[8]

Some (but not all) of the statements below were made in the context of Operation Desert Fox, a four-day military operation in December 1998 in which the U.S. military struck at Iraqi WMD sites, Iraqi Republican Guard sites and other Iraqi military and government sites. Snopes.com, a Web site that investigates urban legends, said that while the quotes from Democrats were essentially correct, the quotes were often taken out of context when reprinted on the Internet.[9]

Operation Desert Fox was not designed to destroy completely the Iraqi WMD program, but to "degrade" it and make it harder for Iraq to develop more weapons of mass destruction, Clinton administration officials said.[9]

Some of the statements were made in 2001, 2002 and 2003 in the public debates leading up to the Iraq War.

On September 16, 2002 issue of The Weekly Standard, Stephen W. Hayes wrote:[10]

"Considering the views these Democrats expressed four years ago, why the current reluctance to support President Bush? Who knows? But if the president continues to run into stronger-than-expected resistance from Democrats on Capitol Hill, he can always just recycle the arguments so many Democrats accepted in 1998 [. . .]"

[edit] Clinton administration statements

[edit] President Bill Clinton

On February 4, 1998, CNN reported President Bill Clinton's comments:[11]

"President Bill Clinton said Wednesday that while the United States still prefers a diplomatic solution to the current standoff with Iraq, 'one way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction.'"
"'That is our bottom line,' Clinton said, while attending a White House event on education."

At the same time, Defense Secretary William Cohen said the goal of military action was not to remove Saddam, but to degrade his ability to develop weapons of mass destruction. U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and U.S Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said they hoped military action would be designed to osut Saddam (see below).[11]

From a speech before the Joint Chiefs of Staff on February 17, 1998:[12]

"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, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer." [. . .]
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

From a speech explaining the Operation Desert Fox military strike just taken against Iraq (Wednesday, December 16, 1998):[13]

  • "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 weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
  • "First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."
  • "So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people."
  • "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people."
  • Unless Saddam was somehow stopped, Clinton said, "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

From an interview after he left office on Larry King Live, July 22, 2003:[14]

"Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for [in Iraq]. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."

[edit] Madeline Albright, Secretary of State

On February 18, 1998, Secretary of State Madeline Albright appeared along with Defense Secretary William Cohen and White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger at a televised "town meeting" at Ohio State University, where she said:[15]

At one point, she was asked why the United States should oppose the Saddam regime's possession of nuclear weapons when other nations had them. Her response:

"It is a question of whether there is a proclivity to use them. [...] Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender."
"The risks that the leader of a rogue state can use biological or chemical weapons on us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face," Albright said later at that meeting.
  • "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." Albright said.[1]

Other Albright quotes about Iraq:

  • "As we made very clear this week, we will take unilateral action when we feel our national interests have been threatened." -- August 23, 1998[16]
  • "Saddam was not just another dictator. He had invaded both Iran and Kuwait, and yearned to develop a nuclear bomb to impress an Arab world that despised him." -- From Madam Secretary[16]
  • "It seemed to me obvious that, under the circumstances, it would have been immoral not to confront Saddam Hussein." -- From Madam Secretary[16]
  • "Wanting to shield Iraqi's from suffering, they [protesters] thought the way to do that was to oppose us. But most hadn't seen the video footage of Saddam's attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1998, where five thousand died...they accused us of not caring but seemed to have no conception of the suffering that appeasing a ruthless dictator might cause." -- From Madam Secretary[16]
  • "The world has not seen, except maybe Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. If you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started to far, then he could do untold damage." -- February 19, 1997[16]

[edit] Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser

At the same public meeting on February 18 that Albright (see above) spoke, Sandy Berger was applauded when he "insisted Washington is still hoping for a peaceful way to persuade Saddam to give United Nations inspectors free access to suspected weapons sites," according to one newspaper report.[17] Berger also said:

"The only answer to aggression and outlaw behaviour is firmness. . . He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983."[17]

Berger was quoted slightly differently elsewhere: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- February 18, 1998[1]

[edit] Statements made by other Democrats

"[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 Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Diane Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, and others, October 9, 1998[1][2]

[edit] U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader

On December 16, 1998, Pelosi stated her support for Operation Desert Fox which had just begun:[9]

"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."
"The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.
"I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means."

As Snopes.com has noted[9] "In this statement Rep. Pelosi was not urging that action be taken against Iraq in order to destroy its WMD technology; she was expressing support for attacks that had already begun with that purpose as their stated objective."

Another source[2] has a slightly different version of the quote above:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to the countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." (word highlighted for this article to show difference)

"I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program." -- December 16, 1998[2]

"I said that the intelligence does not support the threat that the administration is putting forth in Iraq, and that while there may be chemical and biological weapons, because they're rampant in the region, there was no imminent threat that would justify our going to war." -- January 16, 2004, remarks to the National Press Club[2]

[edit] U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan)

“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." -- Carl Levin, September 19, 2002[1]

"We urge you...to take necessary actions to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- October 9, 1998[18]

"I support President Clinton's decision to undertake military operations against Iraq. President Clinton had no alternative because Saddam Hussein has left the world no alternative." -- December 17, 1998[2]

On October 6, 1998, Levin, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said during a committee hearing that he and other senators were signing a letter to President Clinton on the subject of the threat from Saddam:[9]

"As the Chairman has indicated, the situation in Iraq also poses a threat to international peace and security. Once again, Saddam Hussein has halted cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Without intrusive inspections, we will not be able to ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are destroyed in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions. Without those inspections, the Iraqi people will continue to suffer as a result of international economic sanctions.
"And that is why, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Hutchison, I am circulating among our Senate colleagues a letter to President Clinton, urging him, in consultation with Congress, consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take effective actions, including if appropriate, the use of air strikes, to respond to the Iraqi threat."

[edit] Al Gore, vice president, 2000 presidential nominee

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- September 23, 2002[19]

In the same speech, he said:

"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."[19]

[edit] U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)

  • "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- September 27, 2002, a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

But Kennedy's immediate next words were:

  • "Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein — and I quote — 'is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War.' That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war."[9]

[edit] U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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." -- Robert Byrd, October 3, 2002[1]

[edit] U.S. Senator John F. Kerry, 2004 presidential nominee

  • "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." -- John F. Kerry, October 9, 2002[1]
  • "Without 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 is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…" -- January 23, 2003[1]

In the second 2004 presidential election debate (after the Iraq War started, but referencing his positions from before it), Kerry said:[20]

"Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary."

But later in the same debate, Kerry denied there was a threat from Iraq when he was asked "Iran sponsors terrorism and has missiles capable of hitting Israel and southern Europe. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two to three years time. In the event that U.N. sanctions don't stop this threat, what will you do as president?" Kerry's response:

"I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you're absolutely correct, it [terrorism] is a threat, it's a huge threat. And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat."

[edit] U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia)

"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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002[21]

[edit] U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California)

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.

"And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last UN weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of Saddam’s willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime.

"What Saddam has done in the interim is not known for certain - but there is every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime Minister of Britain, to President Bush’s speech at the United Nations, that Saddam has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons stocks, and that he is determined to obtain the means necessary to produce nuclear weapons. He has ballistic missiles, and more are on order. He traffics with other evil people in this world, intent on harming the United States, Israel, other nations in the Middle East, and our friends across the globe." -- U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, October 10, 2002[22]

[edit] U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York)

"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." -- U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002[23]

[edit] U.S. Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida)

  • "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." -- U.S. Senator Bob Graham to CBS News, December 8, 2002 as reported by The Asia Times[24]
  • "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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 Graham and others, December 5, 2001[16]

[edit] U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina), 2004 vice presidential nominee

  • "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades Saddam has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons." - John Edwards, October 10, 2002[2]

[edit] Gen. Wesley Clark, 2004 presidential candidate

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- General Wesley Clark, September 26, 2002[16]

[edit] U.S. Minority Leader Dick Gephart (D-Missouri)

"I share the administration's goals of dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt, September, 2002[2]

"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him (Hussein) from getting these weapons, and either using them himself, or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent." -- October 2002[2]

"I get frustrated when everyone on all of this is trying to infuse political motive into these decisions. I mean, let's get serious. We are not playing games here. This is life and death." -- responding on CNN to criticism from fellow Democrats October 4, 2002[2]

"I didn't take Bush's word for whether or not they had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I went to the CIA. I sat down across from George Tenet. I said, 'George, I have to vote, you don't. Are you worried that they have weapons or the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons?' He said 'yes' emphatically. I got the same thing from high officials in the Clinton administration who had worked in the security area." - -- November 17, 2003[2]

[edit] Press coverage

The New York Times, Washington Post and other news organizations, "ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush," Robert Kagan has written.

Times headlines before 2001 include:

  • "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say" (November 1998),
  • "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan" (August 1998),
  • "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000),
  • "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000),
  • "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000).

Several Times reporters wrote the stories, including Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers. Judith Miller shared a byline on one. Post headlines include: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported" (September 1998).[25]

[edit] Newspaper editorials

[edit] New York Times editorial comment

From 1998 through 2000, the Times ran a number of editorials trumpeting the danger from Hussein's regime. One editorial warned that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year" and that "future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again." Without those attacks, Saddam's regime could "restore its ability to deliver biological and chemical weapons against potential targets in the Middle East." The editorial further stated, "The world cannot leave Mr. Hussein free to manufacture horrific germs and nerve gases and use them to terrorize neighboring countries."[25]

The danger from Iraq was not in the far future, it appeared to the Times, which was impatient when the Clinton administration attempted to negotiate -- the newspaper warned against letting "diplomacy drift into dangerous delay. Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon." The Times also argued that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country's salvation." A Times editorial insisted, "As Washington contemplates an extended war against terrorism, it cannot give in to a man who specializes in the unthinkable."[25]

[edit] Washington Post editorial comment

"[O]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous -- or more urgent -- than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons." -- Washington Post editorial, January 29, 2001[1]

[edit] Republicans

[edit] U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia)

House Speaker Newt Gingrich was quoted in a February 4, 1998 news story saying the world's leaders must avoid "incremental timidity" that would only leave Saddam stronger:[11]

"My hope is that military planning will be designed to coerce him or replace him and will not simply punish him and leave him in charge of building the weapons," Gingrich said. "That's not a victory. That's a defeat."

Unlike Trent Lott (see below) Gingrich supported Clinton's bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox: "Gingrich [. . .] said the strikes were an example of 'the U.S. leading the world by exercising its military power in an appropriate way,'" according to a CNN account at the time.[26]

[edit] U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)

Any military action taken against Saddam, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said in February 1998, should take him out of power:[11]

"We should do everything we can to get this resolved and find a way to have him removed from office, one way or the other."

But when President Clinton started Operation Desert Fox, bombing Iraq in December 1998, Lott said: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. [. . .] Both the timing and the policy are subject to question." [26] Presumably "at this time" refers to Congress' deliberations over whether to impeach Clinton.

[edit] U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona)

"The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not left over from the first Bush administration, but, rather, unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, 'It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.' This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration." -- U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, March 12, 2004

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i [1]Quoted in The Anchoress blog, entry titled "Where did the WMD Intel come from? Filed under: Bush Bad?, Touch of evil, War on Terror", dated November 2, 2005, accessed September 24, 2006
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l [2]"Security Watchtower" Web site, Web page titled, "The Full Context of the Discussion on Iraq WMD (1991-2003)", accessed September 24, 2006
  3. ^ [3]"Sister Toldjah" blog, posting "If Bush lied, so did many others" post dated October 7, 2004 8:47 p.m.; accessed September 26, 2006
  4. ^ [4]Lillpop, John W., "Did Liberals Lie About Weapons of Mass Destruction?" post on the "Wizbang Bomb Squad" blog, dated September 4, 2006, accessed September 24, 2006
  5. ^ [5]Hayes, Stephen F., "Democrats for Regime Change: The President has some surprising allies", "The Weekly Standard," September 16, 2002 Volume 008, Issue 01, accessed September 16, 2006
  6. ^ [6]Podhoretz, Norman, "At War: Who Is Lying About Iraq?: A campaign of distortion aims to discredit the liberation." opinion article at the OpinionJournal.com Web site of The Wall Street Journal dated November 14, 2005, and later reprinted in [7] the December 2005 issue of Commentary magazine, both sites accessed September 26, 2006
  7. ^ [8]Phillips, James, "Dispelling the Myths About Iraq [. . .] WebMemo #932", on the Heritage Foundation Web site, Web page dated December 2, 2005, see subsection titled "MYTH: The Bush Administration exaggerated the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to justify the war", accessed September 26, 2006
  8. ^ [9]Barone, Michael, "The Disappearing 'Us'", U.S. News Web site, October 2, 2006, accessed same day
  9. ^ a b c d e f [10]Snopes.com Web site, Web page titled "Words of Mass Destruction", accessed September 24, 2006
  10. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named hayes
  11. ^ a b c d [11]CNN Web site, Web page titled "Clinton: Iraq must comply 'one way or the other': GOP leaders say any strike should remove Hussein", February 4, 1998, "Web posted at: 9:23 p.m. EST (0223 GMT)" accessed September 24, 2006
  12. ^ [12] "Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff" February 17, 1998 accessed September 24, 2006
  13. ^ [13]From CNN.com Web site, Web page titled "Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike" dated Wednesday, December 16, 1998
  14. ^ [14]Transcript of July 22, 2003 Larry King Live program on CNN, Web page titled "Bob Dole Turns 80", Web page says "THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED." accessed September 26, 2006
  15. ^ [15]Snopes.com Web site, Web page titled "Words of Mass Destruction" Snopes cites a Columbus Dispatch newspaper article for these and other February 18 quotes, unless otherwise noted: Powers, Scott and Lornet Turnbull, "Town Meeting Turbulent." The Columbus Dispatch. February 19, 1998 page A2. Snopes.com Web page accessed September 24, 2006
  16. ^ a b c d e f g [16]"The Who Said It Game - Iraq Style" blog, accessed September 24, 2006
  17. ^ a b [17]Snopes.com Web site, Web page titled "Words of Mass Destruction" which cites: Kenna, Kathleen. "Anti-Iraq Show Goes on the Road in America." The Toronto Star. February 19, 1998 page A16; Snopes.com Web site accessed September 24, 2006
  18. ^ [18]"Iraq Watch" Web site of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Web page titled "CONCERN OVER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ/ (Senate - October 09, 1998)/ HON. CARL LEVIN/ in the Senate/ October 9, 1998" accessed September 26, 2006
  19. ^ a b The Washington Post Web site, Web page titlde "Text: Gore Assails Bush's Iraq Policy" provided through eMediaMillWorks, dated Monday, September 23, 2002, described on that page as "Following is the text of former vice president Al Gore's speech before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco," accessed September 24, 2006
  20. ^ [19]Washington Post Web site, Web page titled, "Transcript: Second Presidential Debate: Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.: October 8, 2004: Text From FDCH E-Media, Inc., accessed September 24, 2006
  21. ^ [20]Web site of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Web page titled "Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV on the Senate Floor/On the Iraq Resolution/October 10, 2002" accessed September 24, 2002
  22. ^ [21]U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman's Web site, Web page titled "In the News: Statements and Speeches: Statement Regarding Statement Regarding the Possible War with Iraq" dated October 10, 2002, accessed September 26, 2006
  23. ^ [22]U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's Web site, Web page titled "October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq As Delivered" accessed September 24, 2006
  24. ^ [23]Isenberg, David, "Disclosing the UN spin game", article in The Asia Times, December 12, 2002
  25. ^ a b c [24] Kagan, Robert, op-ed column titled "It Wasn't Just Miller's Story" in The Washington Post, October 25, 2005, page A21
  26. ^ a b [25]CNN Web site, Web page/article titled, "Republicans skeptical of Iraq attack on eve of impeachment vote" December 16, 1998, accessed September 26, 2006

[edit] External links