Hanging with Saddam
Posted January 8th, 2007 by Chip Bok
Click Image to Enlarge.
Other than the jeering witnesses with those pesky cellphone cameras, nobody seemed happy about the way he went. Not even a Hitchins or a Krauthammer. Even those on the angry left who wish the same for Bush, however, think Saddam got what he deserved.
Me? Just another obit cartoon.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Well Chip, if lying about Iraq's WMDs is indeed what got Saddam hung, then it's safe to say Dick Cheney should sit quietly in his undisclosed location for the forseeable future.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction…
"[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." — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." — Madeline Albright, 1998
"(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" — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." — Robert Byrd, October 2002
"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." — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." — Bill Clinton in 1998
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." — Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." — Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, 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." — Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"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." — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
January 8th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Nice work Smitty. I think its pretty interesting that most of these comments were made in 2002. 16 of the comments come within period of a couple of months. If most of these folks thought that Iraq had WMDs, then where do you suppose they got their intel ? What evidence were they shown ? Who showed it to them?
Ask yourself as well. if Saddam Hussein, who obviously was as ruthless and cold-blooded a murderer as they come had WMDs, why didn't he use them in either Gulf War ?
Smitty, do yourself a favor and do a little reading on how Cheney and Rumsfeld bullied the the CIA into coming up with this whole WMD pretext for the war. Do a little reading as well on the Project for the New American Century and you'll see these boys had Iraq on their minds for a long time. 9/11 was
just an excuse to put their strategy into play.
That so many people, left and right blindly went along with Cheney's bullshit just adds to the tragedy.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:25 am
"Nice work Smitty. I think its pretty interesting that most of these comments were made in 2002."
How about these in 1998 & 1999 prior to the Bush Administration?
"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 | Source
"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
Therefore your statement about Bush and Chaney is totally false as usual
January 9th, 2007 at 4:59 am
Which statement was false ?
January 9th, 2007 at 6:08 am
"Nice work Smitty. I think its pretty interesting that most of these comments were made in 2002. 16 of the comments come within period of a couple of months. If most of these folks thought that Iraq had WMDs, then where do you suppose they got their intel ? What evidence were they shown ? Who showed it to them?"
It's apparant that you cannot acknowledge the statements made by the Clinton Administration in 1998 and 1999. You referred to statements being made in 2002.
Who showed it to them? The Clinton administration when leaving office.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:00 am
There is huge leap from suspecting that someone has WMDs to
actually invading their country,decapitating their government, and digging in for a costly open-ended occupation.
It's a little like what goes on here… it's easy for people to call another person a moron or whatever. It's quite another thing to knock on their door and say it to their face. Politicians do the much the same thing using 19 year old kids to do the dirty work.
It cost Clinton and the rest of the folks you cited nothing to beat their chests and demonize a known demon from the safety of their offices, and if they were wrong, it cost this country nothing in lives or money. Bush/Cheney on the other hand, went headlong into Iraq with no solid evidence that Saddam had WMDs and made false and misleading statements trying to link Saddam to 9/11. We are now seeing the cost of that decision. Maybe that doesn't bother you. It bothers me.
Whether you like it or not, Iraq was a sovereign nation and had the right to possess WMDs just as India, Pakistan, North Korea, China, the Soviet Union, and (probably) Israel do. The mere fact that they have them is not enough of a reason to invade another soveriegn country. Even if Saddam had WMDs, he was boxed in by the no-fly zones. During the invasion of Iraq, I don't think Iraq even got a fighter plane into the air. If they did, it was to leave the country ASAP never to return.
And finally, I'm asking you why didn't Saddam the Terrible use the WMDs that you say he had ?
January 9th, 2007 at 11:40 am
So are you conceding that Clinton, Pelosi and the rest were lying like Cheney?
January 9th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
President Bush must have done this too since he was blamed for the price of oil going to $70 barrel.
"Oils Prices Sag to About $54 a Barrel"
January 9th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I don't know whether they were lying or not. But I'm pretty sure they weren't over at the CIA cherry picking intel, bullying intelligence officers, and crafting the "facts" as an excuse to go into Iraq. A lot of the quotes come from two distinct periods of time- 1998 and late 2002 which leads to me think they were in response to certain events. These statements were likely mere saber rattling to keep Saddam in check and on notice.
As I said, there is a whopping big difference between breast beating and an ass beating.
Read up on the Project for the New American Century. Its members included Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Scooter Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Donald Rumsfeld.
All of these guys were or are players in the Bush Administration and played a major role in the Iraq gambit. It was their idea to go into Iraq as early as 1997 as way to secure the Middle East and "protect" Israel. Bush was elected president in 2000, 9/11 happened and they were off to the races. Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs or terrorism or Iraqi freedom but much, much more about Israel, oil, and gving companies like Halliburton a long hard drink at the public trough.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Smitty, Could you have made a more irrelevant comment?
Answer the question: Why didn't Saddam use his WMDs in either Gulf War ?
January 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
"Answer the question: Why didn't Saddam use his WMDs in either Gulf War ? "
Because he was told if he did we would respond with nukes. As for the second war, he had months to send them to Syria and everyone knows that but you.
You Bush and Cheney haters keep harping on where the WMD are and some day we will know the answer and you wil eat much crow. But then again you of curse will deny that you ever said anything.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Since everyone but me knows that Saddam shipped his WMDs to Syria, then why did we spend so much time and effort looking for them in Iraq? Seems to me that if everyone (except me) knew they were in Syria, why didn't we look for them there ? It also occurs to me that since Bush said that anyone aiding terrorists would be considered terrorists as well, why didn't we invade Syria ? Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? After all bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.
Cmon Smitty use your head. On one hand you say everyone but me knows Saddam shipped his WMDs to Syria and in the next sentence you say that some day we will know the answer as to where they are. Either you know or you don't. Which is it?
January 9th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Since everyone but me knows that Saddam shipped his WMDs to Syria, then why did we spend so much time and effort looking for them in Iraq? Seems to me that if everyone (except me) knew they were in Syria, why didn't we look for them there ? It also occurs to me that since Bush said that anyone aiding terrorists would be considered terrorists as well, why didn't we invade Syria ? Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? After all bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.
Cmon Smitty use your head. On one hand you say everyone but me knows Saddam shipped his WMDs to Syria and in the next sentence you say that some day we will know the answer as to where they are. Either you know or you don't. Which is it?
January 9th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
This is what I said:
"he had months to send them to Syria and everyone knows that but you."
I have no interest in arguing with you. As you have done to others before me, I posted and then you attacked me instead of just posting your oinion. As the others have done, I will stop posting here as you ruin it for everyone.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:49 am
You jumped on my post Smitty, not the other way around. I'd be interested to know what comment I made that you perceive as an "attack". I merely asked you some questions and asked you to read up on a couple of things. There were no insults or name calling on my part.
And so it goes…. Auggie, Sam, Slope, Burns, TJ, and now Smitty. All tough guys until they get their opinions get challenged. Only Mick has the brains and the balls to challenge me. Kudos to Larry as well.
Chip: Apparently the conventional wisdom around here is that I'm ruining this blog. What say you? There are plenty of other places to play. At this point it makes no nevermind to me.
January 10th, 2007 at 6:48 am
I made no reference to you or your post. There for I did not jump on you. I simply posted comments by many others about WMD.
You then responded to me personnaly.
Doesn't matter. I am out of here along with all the others you mentioned who have left because of your making references to individuals posting here instead of just posting your position.
January 10th, 2007 at 10:16 am
My goodness this blog has become politically correct.