Quantcast

Did Democrats Believe Saddam Hussein Had Weapons of Mass Destruction? Did They Support Going To War In Iraq Or Was It Just Republicans?

chaoskitty123 2011/07/15 05:40:20
In 1998, Bill Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655 which was passed by both the House and Senate http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm stating the following

Quote
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.
End Quote

While many defending Clinton have stated that the measure only addresses supporting opposition to Saddam, the open ended wording of the resolution does not specifically state this and at the time, Clinton knew that there essentially was no real opposition to Saddam within Iraq which we could support based on the wording of the legislation.

Then, there is the way the war was fought with Democrat special interests and leftwing media unleashing a never ending assault about Bush lying about the weapons of mass destruction with many Democrat leaders who supported the invasion of Iraq (or the beliefs which justified Bush doing it) denying they ever believed there were WMD's or calling Bush a liar when they based their own beliefs not only on the sources Bush employed to provide his intel... but their own sources as well.

Here's just a little proof of this... you be the judge as there's nothing worse than a liar and while they mean that about Bush, let's remind them who else lied. You don't have to be a rightwinger to point this out as I supported the left when Bush was President and I too believed he was lying... and I opposed the war in Iraq.










Ok, so let's get this straight... the Democrats made the fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to win elections as early as the end of the first Gulf War, used the WMD issue against Bush sr claiming he should have removed Saddam beating the war drums louder than Republicans blaming Bush sr for Saddam not being removed from power, used the threat of WMD's during Clintons entire two terms as President, passed legislation to remove Saddam in October 1998 then start taking military actions against Saddam in December 1998 but claim H.R. 4655 wasn't created to take military action, then they continue this fearmongering after Bush jr is elected President, Bush jr uses the same intelligence sources Democrats have been using for a decade to confirm Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, Democrats even after the Iraq War begins continue to claim Saddam has WMD's but by Bush's second term they are denying they ever supported this, claiming Bush had no authority which H.R. 4655 gave him, they themselves voted for war in Iraq because their own intel reported Saddam had WMD's... but it's all the Republicans and Bush jr's fault because they lied to us about WMD's which a large number of Democrats continued to claim Saddam had even after the Iraq War had been under way for years.

But Bush jr alone was to blame and Bush alone lied about Saddam possessing WMD's?

So I guess watching them on video and reading their undeniable statements where they beat the war drums claiming Saddam Hussein had WMD's and supporting removing him from power even before the elections in 1992 is some sort of illusion or magic trick Bush jr pulled to make people think Democrats were saying the same things he was for ten years prior to his decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

I didn't post this to slam Democrats... I'm just sick and tired of Democrats lying about this matter saying only Bush jr is to blame and only Republicans were claiming Saddam had WMD's lying to the world when they did the same thing, for the same reasons and far more often. If you are a Democrat and believe in truth... then you will not be offended by this topic and possibly even view anger by Republicans as somewhat justified when you consider that the truth is Democrats and Republicans thought he had WMD's... and where's the shame in thinking that whether it proves true or not, the only shame should be one side suddenly getting collective amnesia to scapegoat and attack the other as if they alone were to blame when their own side exploited this issue to a much higher level where Bush going to war was actually what Democrats themselves were calling on him to do... until it became politically advantageous to pass blame on Bush and the Republicans only.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Runaway ✩ 2013/06/16 18:02:12
  • Runaway ✩ Runaway ✩ 2013/06/16 18:11:42
    Runaway ✩
    Oh - I must add the other item that killed any faith in Iraq's possession of NBC weapons.

    At it's most capable production stages, Iraq never had our state-of-the-art dehydration equipment and techniques. Saddam never felt any need for long term shelf life of his weapons - mostly, he produced them and used them within months. The stuff he DIDN'T use in the short term, degraded rapidly. No matter what he might have produced prior to the Gulf War - none of it remained viable by 2002. None of it. Any chemical or biological weapons that remained were as much a hazard to the troops using it, as to any intended victims.

    Would it make you sick? Sure. Would it kill you? In high enough concentrations, sure. Was it still "weapons grade"? Absolutely NOT! It was all degraded crap by 2002, and Sadman no longer had the capability to produce weapons grade bio and chem weapons.
  • Racefish 2011/07/18 11:17:44
    Racefish
    +1
    "I didn't post this to slam Democrats"

    They do a pretty good job of it themselves.
  • bluejacket Racefish 2011/07/18 11:27:33
    bluejacket
    With a little help from their friends.... friends msnbc friends cbs friends abc friends keith overbite
  • mchappell2 2011/07/18 08:19:00
    mchappell2
    Great point
  • beachbum 2011/07/18 08:17:57
    beachbum
    They all did.
  • Ken 2011/07/18 04:54:28
    Ken
    Are you trying to make the Democrats look bad? Oh that's right, they are.
  • Denny 2011/07/18 03:10:35
    Denny
    Don't forget it was James Carvill who said the only way to beat GW as late in his term as he was and still over 90% For, is to get the Democrap press to find anything wrong with what he does. Then of course Billy Clinton showing remorse because they wouldn't attack us during his term to leave his legacy. GW was brillant to force the Dems to have to root for our enemys and not our dying troops. Good move George.
  • mwg0735 2011/07/18 02:06:44
  • Kane Fernau 2011/07/18 01:43:51
    Kane Fernau
    Bush just continued Clinton's policies.
  • MarinerFH 2011/07/18 00:51:07
  • Angel 2011/07/18 00:49:53
    Angel
    +2
    The left clearly supported the Iraq war, Bush had congressional approval with democrats in control of both senate and house....
  • Lynn Angel 2011/07/18 02:32:00
    Lynn
    +2
    Until the Dems discovered that it was politically expedient to change their minds and try to pretend that their support never happened, or that they were lied to. Fact is, EVERYONE was lied to, so blaming Bush us just politics at its worst on the part of the Dems.
  • bluejacket Lynn 2011/07/18 11:28:46
    bluejacket
    +1
    And the libtards are soooooo smart, they didn't see that, thay ran with it!
  • PrettieReptar 2011/07/16 17:50:19 (edited)
    PrettieReptar
    +2
    Good grief people get it through your heads already. There is no difference between dems and repubs. The two party system is a divisive trick.
  • chaoski... Prettie... 2011/07/17 06:57:11
    chaoskitty123
    +2
    They can't... the point of this topic is to prove what the Democrats knew because Democrats, particularly Liberals who support Obama, claim to this day that Bush alone claimed Iraq had WMD's when much of the Clinton spy network and intelligence were the same people providing information to Bush. The pattern of Democrats banging the war drums about WMD's is very clear following the first Gulf War as are their statements that Saddam should be removed from power (like they're doing with Gaddafi now) and even going so far as to create legislation for the purpose of removing Saddam... then launching military attacks proving that the legislation wasn't just for supporting opposition sources in Iraq who everyone knew didn't have a chance even with our support... it was very clear the legislation was meant to be used for US military action which Clinton proved almost as soon as H.R. 4655 was passed. Bush was granted the legal authority to invade Iraq during the Clinton Administration and you are very correct that they both are the same as both sides were claiming they had proof Saddam had weapons of mass destruction... but after Obama got elected, the left seems to have gotten collective amnesia about this and that blindness led them to think Obama would be different when he's only a ...



    They can't... the point of this topic is to prove what the Democrats knew because Democrats, particularly Liberals who support Obama, claim to this day that Bush alone claimed Iraq had WMD's when much of the Clinton spy network and intelligence were the same people providing information to Bush. The pattern of Democrats banging the war drums about WMD's is very clear following the first Gulf War as are their statements that Saddam should be removed from power (like they're doing with Gaddafi now) and even going so far as to create legislation for the purpose of removing Saddam... then launching military attacks proving that the legislation wasn't just for supporting opposition sources in Iraq who everyone knew didn't have a chance even with our support... it was very clear the legislation was meant to be used for US military action which Clinton proved almost as soon as H.R. 4655 was passed. Bush was granted the legal authority to invade Iraq during the Clinton Administration and you are very correct that they both are the same as both sides were claiming they had proof Saddam had weapons of mass destruction... but after Obama got elected, the left seems to have gotten collective amnesia about this and that blindness led them to think Obama would be different when he's only a continuation who made things worse.

    Even many Republicans fault and blame Bush for a lot of what's gone wrong. However, the political left makes that blame an absolute and only Republicans are to blame for everything leading Republicans to become defensive and reuniting them at a time when Conservatives and Neocons were at one anothers throats after the 2008 election.

    You are very correct PR and thank you for your reply.
    (more)
  • wolf sloan 2011/07/15 12:03:34
    wolf sloan
    +3
    They were "for it before they were against it"
  • T1 2011/07/15 10:55:41
    T1
    +3
    facts are not something liberals like too much.
  • Zuggi 2011/07/15 06:02:50
    Zuggi
    +3
    At the end of the first Gulf War he had WMDs; he used them as late as the late 80s. Sometime between the Gulf War and the Iraqi War he got rid of them but attempted to keep the knowledge that they were gone uncertain. His reasoning appeared to be "if they think I might have WMDs, they'll be careful about overthrowing me, but they won't invade without proof".

    The difference, in my mind, is that Bush claimed that he had proof that Saddam still had WMDs. He was wrong.
  • chaoski... Zuggi 2011/07/17 06:39:45
    chaoskitty123
    +2
    John Kerry and many Democrats including Hillary Clinton also claimed to have proof gained from heir own sources... so the view Bush claimed he had proof falls flat Zuggi. That's the point, Democrats want to keep blaming Bush and they do so even when Democrats themselves were supporting him and claiming they had proof.

    Likewise, what about Bill Clintons claims Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction justifying H.R. 4655 and his own military attacks against Saddam. The videos I provided run from after the First Gulf War through both Clinton and Bush's Administrations revealing both sides claiming there were WMD's. Clinton claimed he knew as well and on multiple occasions. Watch the videos again... you will see Bill Clinton state on more than one occasion that he knew Saddam had WMD's. You will hear Gore saying it and numerous Democrats from the time before Bus was elected and then after he was elected.

    It's like when I point out if you look at Obama's voting record you see that while he talks like a Liberal, his voting record is largely rightwing and as a US Senator, he never voted against Bush even once but in favor of everything Bush wanted. Granted, many of us didn't know much about Obama when the 2008 election took place but now, we know these things about Obama. Yet, a large b...









    John Kerry and many Democrats including Hillary Clinton also claimed to have proof gained from heir own sources... so the view Bush claimed he had proof falls flat Zuggi. That's the point, Democrats want to keep blaming Bush and they do so even when Democrats themselves were supporting him and claiming they had proof.

    Likewise, what about Bill Clintons claims Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction justifying H.R. 4655 and his own military attacks against Saddam. The videos I provided run from after the First Gulf War through both Clinton and Bush's Administrations revealing both sides claiming there were WMD's. Clinton claimed he knew as well and on multiple occasions. Watch the videos again... you will see Bill Clinton state on more than one occasion that he knew Saddam had WMD's. You will hear Gore saying it and numerous Democrats from the time before Bus was elected and then after he was elected.

    It's like when I point out if you look at Obama's voting record you see that while he talks like a Liberal, his voting record is largely rightwing and as a US Senator, he never voted against Bush even once but in favor of everything Bush wanted. Granted, many of us didn't know much about Obama when the 2008 election took place but now, we know these things about Obama. Yet, a large but declining number of people on the left who keep attacking Bush, while holding Obama unaccountable for supporting Bush, still keep supporting Obama even though it's clear he's been supporting Bush policies in his own administration and stabs them in the back at every opportunity like how he recently put Social Security and Medicare on the table for cuts in the debt ceiling debate when his entire support base is against it.

    By observing issues like this where Democrats are blaming Bush for lying about WMD's when it's very clear they and their own leaders for a decade were stating they believed Saddam still had or was building WMD's... this is selective memory and hypocrisy.

    You say Bush claimed he had proof and that makes a difference... Clinton also claimed he had proof or else, wouldn't his own actions be worse in that he ordered military strikes with no proof at all to back up his statements that Saddam had WMD's?

    Then look at our actions in Libya... how does it differ when one of the lead reasons for going after Saddam during the Clinton years was his having used chemical weapons on his own people in the past and killing his own people?

    In fact Zuggi, almost everyone seems to have forgotten Clintons own battles with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban putting all blame there on Bush and pointing out how Bush never got bin Laden forgetting Clinton also tried to get Osama killed but failed... and the fact we still have not been given one ounce of proof Obama got Osama except the word of a government we all admit lies to us and rarely tells us the truth.

    So why do you think only Bush claimed he had proof... the videos tell us Clinton also thought he had proof and it takes little effort to find that leading Democrats like John Kerry said they had proof... remember, Bush never said he personally had any proof but that his intelligence network provided the proof and most of the people who were there under Clinton are the same people providing Bush the evidence he claimed to posses... some of it having been discovered while Clinton was President.
    (more)
  • Zuggi chaoski... 2011/07/17 08:03:45
    Zuggi
    I couldn't view all those videos, as it would take too much time. But let me pull from the transcript of the Clinton speech at the end.

    It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

    And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

    As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

    Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

    Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

    This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operation...














    I couldn't view all those videos, as it would take too much time. But let me pull from the transcript of the Clinton speech at the end.

    It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

    And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

    As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

    Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

    Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

    This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

    Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

    By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.


    I read three things in that.

    1) Iraq had WMDs at one point; this is an incontrovertible fact.

    2) Huge quantities of WMDs were destroyed by weapons inspectors.

    3) Saddam had started harassing (worse) the inspectors, who thought there were probably more WMDs. Therefore, limited strikes would be undertaken to force him to let them back in.

    That's a far cry from "There are WMDs. They are here, in this picture, and it's the undeniable truth. Therefore, we're going to invade the entire country."
    (more)
  • historian 2011/07/15 05:52:39
    historian
    +1
    They all did as they were told. Whatever it takes to keep up the illusion of the "People" having control.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/29 08:48:47

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals