One reader recently emailed a list of statements made by various war-mongering democrats regarding Sadaam Hussein, Iraq and WOMDs.
The list includes statements made by President Bill Clinton; Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State; Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser; Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry; Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA); Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL); Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI); Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA); Al Gore; Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV); Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), and numerous others.
That's a pretty substantial list. And Snopes verifies the quotes in Words of Mass Destruction.
Please check out who said what when.
Also note the context. While Snopes verified the quotes, it also puts the quotes in context. For example, Senator Hillary Clinton stated in a 2002 speech ...
"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."
Hillary did indeed make that statement.
What Clinton detractors fail to point out is that in the same speech, she also stated ...
“If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
“So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Hillary had that correct in spades did she not?
So while all the quotes were accurate, some were extremely misleading.
Push for War
I am not out to absolve Hillary Clinton of all blame. When the final vote came, she stupidly voted for war as did many Democrats. Her vote and later defense of that vote cost her the nomination.
That aside, who is the guilty party here? Bush, who twisted arms with blatant lies and nonsense, or the Democrat and Republican fools who fell for those lies?
"Haven't We Done Enough?"
What follows is via permission from the Ron Paul Institute. For ease in reading I will dispense with usual blockquote indentations.
Start Ron Paul
Haven’t We Already Done Enough Damage in Iraq?
In 2006, I invited the late General Bill Odom to address my Thursday Congressional luncheon group. Gen. Odom, a former NSA director, called the Iraq war “the greatest strategic disaster in American history," and told the surprised audience that he could not understand why Congress had not impeached the president for pushing this disaster on the United States. History continues to prove the General’s assessment absolutely correct.
In September, 2002, arguing against a US attack on Iraq, I said the following on the House Floor:
No credible evidence has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of the al Qaeda and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism.Unfortunately, Congress did not listen.
As we know, last week the second largest city in Iraq, Mosul, fell to the al-Qaeda allied Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Last week an al-Qaeda that had not been in Iraq before our 2003 invasion threatened to move on the capitol, Baghdad, after it easily over-ran tens of thousands of Iraqi military troops.
The same foreign policy “experts” who lied us into the Iraq war are now telling us we must re-invade Iraq to deal with the disaster caused by their invasion! They cannot admit they were wrong about the invasion being a “cakewalk” that would pay for itself, so they want to blame last week’s events on the 2011 US withdrawal from Iraq. But the trouble started with the 2003 invasion itself, not the 2011 troop withdrawal. Anyone who understands cause and effect should understand this.
The Obama administration has said no option except for ground troops is off the table to help the Iraqi government in this crisis. We should not forget, however, that the administration does not consider Special Forces or the CIA to be “boots on the ground.” So we may well see Americans fighting in Iraq again.
It is also likely that the administration will begin shipping more weapons and other military equipment to the Iraqi army, in the hopes that they might be able to address the ISIS invasion themselves. After years of US training, costing as much as $20 billion, it is unlikely the Iraqi army is up to the task. Judging from the performance of the Iraqi military as the ISIS attacked, much of that money was wasted or stolen.
A big US government weapons transfer to Iraq will no doubt be favored by the US military-industrial complex, which stands to profit further from the Iraq meltdown. This move will also be favored by those in Washington who realize how politically unpopular a third US invasion of Iraq would be at home, but who want to “do something” in the face of the crisis. Shipping weapons may be an action short of war, but it usually leads to war. And as we have already seen in Iraq and Syria, very often these weapons fall into the hands of the al-Qaeda we are supposed to be fighting!
Because of the government’s foolish policy of foreign interventionism, the US is faced with two equally stupid choices: either pour in resources to prop up an Iraqi government that is a close ally with Iran, or throw our support in with al-Qaida in Iraq (as we have done in Syria). I say we must follow a third choice: ally with the American people and spend not one more dollar or one more life attempting to re-make the Middle East. Haven’t we have already done enough damage?
Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
End Ron Paul
We do not know what would have happened had Al Gore won. But we do know what Bush did!
My position has been consistent. I am proud to have been on the right side of this issue from the beginning, never once wavering or believing the lies of the Bush administration.
Those who suggest I am "too hard on Bush" are mistaken. I would be equally hard on any president, Republican or Democrat, who did what Bush and Cheney did.
Paul notes": General Bill Odom called the Iraq war “the greatest strategic disaster in American history," telling a "surprised audience that he could not understand why Congress had not impeached the president for pushing this disaster on the United States."
Iraq was indeed an enormous strategic disaster, and a criminal action as well.
Congress should have impeached Bush and Cheney. Both are war criminals in my estimation. But a Republican Congress would never impeach a sitting Republican President for war crimes, but they would impeach a Democrat president over the meaning of "sexual relations".
Moreover, even Democrats would have been reluctant to impeach Bush because they stupidly authorized the war as well.
Thus, no one should be surprised how blame for this mess was swept under the rug, by both parties. No one in either party wants to accept blame or responsibility.
But what to do now?
Ron Paul was right in 2002 and he is right now. Those begging for more intervention just ought to step back and ask "Haven't We Done Enough Damage Already?"
Mike "Mish" Shedlock