Who is the biggest hawk?

Discuss Social and Political issues that are affecting you. Bash the Politicians!
Cambridge
Master Wizard
 
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:07 am

Who is the biggest hawk?

Postby Cambridge on Fri May 09, 2008 4:03 am

Who is the biggest hawk?

Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008


If this year's presidential election is to be a McCain-Clinton contest, folks who care about the peace issue had better be deeply worried. Both of these candidates are inveterate hawks, and what we are up against is a choice between the neoconservatives and the neoliberals as to who could be more adventurous in getting us into unjustifiable foreign wars.

Both not only voted to authorize Bush's irrational invasion of Iraq but also have failed to apply those lessons to the real challenges we face, particularly concerning Iran. On the one hand, we have Sen. John McCain's wildly inane "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" singing refrain and on the other, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's commitment to "totally obliterate" Iran in response to a nuclear attack by Tehran on Israel.

Clinton has stood by her implicitly genocidal threat to the 70 million innocent Iranians, who have no effective control over their government's policy, made in response to a question raised in the heat of primary day in Pennsylvania. She later extended the threat to include retaliation on behalf of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab countries that might be attacked by Iran.

Her statement extending the U.S. "nuclear umbrella" far beyond the threat to retaliate against a Soviet nuclear attack during the Cold War was greeted with a yawn by the media that interpreted it as an election-day ploy to appear tough and pro-Israel. The Washington Post referred to "Clinton's apparent effort to distinguish herself from her rival for the Democratic nomination ... by offering a more hawkish approach to world affairs," than her rival Barack Obama, who has called for negotiations with Iran's leaders and who condemned Clinton's proposal as saber rattling.

But the Washington Post story provided evidence that Clinton's hawkishness is not merely a campaign posture, as evidenced by her two key foreign policy advisers, whom the Post reports helped come up with the "obliterate" Iran idea. One of them is Martin Indyk, the former Clinton administration ambassador to Israel, who was as strong as any of the neoconservatives in advocating the invasion of Iraq. In an article he co-wrote with Kenneth Pollack for the Los Angeles Times three months before the Iraq invasion, which cited their insider status as former government officials who "had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence on Iraq," they claimed that Iraq had "thousands of tons of precursor chemicals for chemical warfare agents, thousands of liters of biological warfare agents..." That "insider" information was false.

The Clinton campaign's national security director Lee Feinstein is another leading Democratic hawk and Clinton administration alum who promoted the threat to obliterate Iran. Feinstein, like Indyk, had strongly disparaged the work of the U.N. inspectors before the invasion. And even a month after the U.S. occupation, as U.S. troops scoured all of the suggested weapons locations, Feinstein argued, "I believe they will find weapons of mass destruction."

The dark irony here is that the unjustifiable invasion of Iraq has elevated Iran to a position of enormous power over events in the region, beginning with its influence over the puppet government in Iraq's Green Zone, many of whose key members, including the prime minister, spent many years in exile in Tehran, where they were trained. The ability of Iran to make life miserable for the American occupation is the main counterweight to a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program, and that is the direct consequence of a war for which Clinton and McCain both voted.

Clinton seems to be far more hawkish than her husband, and her increasingly bellicose remarks support that perception. If she is chosen as the Democratic Party's standard-bearer, she can be expected to tack further in that direction, once the primaries are over and the peace vote has been counted out.

I do not think this a matter of a female candidate having to prove that she is capable of being a macho commander in chief, although there is a whiff of Margaret Thatcher here, so proud of taking her nation to unneeded war. With Clinton, as with Thatcher, quite apart from gender, there seems to be a more basic philosophical commitment to using military force before other options have been seriously explored.

That the force cited by Clinton portends the "total obliteration" of another people raises the prospect of the United States, the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons, doing so again. It suggests that such weapons of mass destruction are not heinous inventions but rather instruments of rational policy when in the hands of the virtuous. That is a message that we dare not deliver to the world.

Robert Scheer's new book is "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America," (Twelve, Hachette).

User avatar
Lena
Archangel
 
Posts: 29983
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Kentucky , USA

Postby Lena on Fri May 09, 2008 4:18 am

Anyone elected will have to deal with Iran .But thw question is who will be the most mature and level headed and not get stampeded into a war by the israel lobby & rigt wing
Alive in spite of myself and looking at the world .........

User avatar
DanMc
M'Lady
 
Posts: 2033
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: UK

Postby DanMc on Fri May 09, 2008 12:02 pm

Lena wrote:Anyone elected will have to deal with Iran .But thw question is who will be the most mature and level headed and not get stampeded into a war by the israel lobby & rigt wing

+1 Not that I get a vote of course.

User avatar
Big Ben
Queen
 
Posts: 4910
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:56 pm

Postby Big Ben on Fri May 09, 2008 1:15 pm

O'Bumma said he'd send in troops to Packistan even without the consent of the Pakistani government. Now that's the way to turn the Muzlim world against the Yanks.

User avatar
Lena
Archangel
 
Posts: 29983
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Kentucky , USA

Postby Lena on Fri May 09, 2008 2:33 pm

Do believe that was just political talk , Americans love tough talkers ! :roll:
Alive in spite of myself and looking at the world .........

User avatar
azraelle
Duchess
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:16 am
Location: southern utah, usa

Postby azraelle on Fri May 09, 2008 4:08 pm

Robert Scheer is afflicted with a malady quite common with news journalists--Long Term Memory Loss. His affirmation that Iraq had no Chemical and Biological weapons of mass destruction is patently false. True, we never found NUCLEAR WMD's, but the fact that everyone seems to conveniently forget is that BOTH SIDES lobbed Chemical WMD's at each other during the Iran/Iraq war of the mid-80's, and I believe that Saddam used both Biologically derived toxins, and Chemical Weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq (and possibly other Iraqis that met with his disfavor) on several different occasions. To assert that the stockpiles just magically disappeared when we invaded Iraq is ludicrous.

As for Hillary being a hawk about Iran if and when they become the first nation to use Nuclear weapons to start a war (and, incidentally the first to use them at all since 1945)--God help us all if SOMEONE WITH SOME BALLS doesn't retaliate in kind...Or do y'all think it will be better to learn Arabic and Farsi, and deny your Christian God in favor of Allah?
"Those Who Cast the Votes Decide Nothing.
Those who Count the Votes decide everything"
--Joseph Stalin

Proud father of Gabrielle (28.), Zefyr (22), Leif (20), Katie (18.), Raven (14)

User avatar
DanMc
M'Lady
 
Posts: 2033
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: UK

Postby DanMc on Fri May 09, 2008 7:43 pm

azraelle wrote:Robert Scheer is afflicted with a malady quite common with news journalists--Long Term Memory Loss. His affirmation that Iraq had no Chemical and Biological weapons of mass destruction is patently false. True, we never found NUCLEAR WMD's, but the fact that everyone seems to conveniently forget is that BOTH SIDES lobbed Chemical WMD's at each other during the Iran/Iraq war of the mid-80's, and I believe that Saddam used both Biologically derived toxins, and Chemical Weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq (and possibly other Iraqis that met with his disfavor) on several different occasions. To assert that the stockpiles just magically disappeared when we invaded Iraq is ludicrous.

As for Hillary being a hawk about Iran if and when they become the first nation to use Nuclear weapons to start a war (and, incidentally the first to use them at all since 1945)--God help us all if SOMEONE WITH SOME BALLS doesn't retaliate in kind...Or do y'all think it will be better to learn Arabic and Farsi, and deny your Christian God in favor of Allah?

That is just bizarre. Are you saying that the WMD are there, but we haven't found them yet? Even Bush is not saying that now. Doubtless they were there at one time, but non were found either during the invasion or by the UN weapons inspectors that Sadam eventually agreed to let in (they had to be withdrawn because Bush and Bliar (sic) had already agreed on an invasion).

As for the other lie about Iraq - helping the Iraqi people, we are all sitting on our hands whilst the people of Burma die because it would be disrespectful to the dictators who run the country to drop aid in. So then
Bombs good
Food and medical supplies bad.

Cambridge
Master Wizard
 
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:07 am

Postby Cambridge on Sat May 10, 2008 1:47 am

Yer, I agree, DanMc. Az, check your facts. The issue isn’t whether there were WMDs ever…the question is what proof did you have when this god-awful war started? Absolutely none. Keep in mind the question at issue at the time: Should we commit 4-5,000 (and counting) lives a year to a purposeless war and a trillion dollars a year…to what basically took place in history? Gengus Kahn was a bad-ass too, do we invade Mongolia today with the same reasoning?

I think Sheer's a straight-shooter.

User avatar
azraelle
Duchess
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:16 am
Location: southern utah, usa

Postby azraelle on Sat May 10, 2008 2:44 am

DanMc wrote:
azraelle wrote:Robert Scheer is afflicted with a malady quite common with news journalists--Long Term Memory Loss. His affirmation that Iraq had no Chemical and Biological weapons of mass destruction is patently false. True, we never found NUCLEAR WMD's, but the fact that everyone seems to conveniently forget is that BOTH SIDES lobbed Chemical WMD's at each other during the Iran/Iraq war of the mid-80's, and I believe that Saddam used both Biologically derived toxins, and Chemical Weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq (and possibly other Iraqis that met with his disfavor) on several different occasions. To assert that the stockpiles just magically disappeared when we invaded Iraq is ludicrous.

As for Hillary being a hawk about Iran if and when they become the first nation to use Nuclear weapons to start a war (and, incidentally the first to use them at all since 1945)--God help us all if SOMEONE WITH SOME BALLS doesn't retaliate in kind...Or do y'all think it will be better to learn Arabic and Farsi, and deny your Christian God in favor of Allah?

That is just bizarre. Are you saying that the WMD are there, but we haven't found them yet? Even Bush is not saying that now. Doubtless they were there at one time, but non were found either during the invasion or by the UN weapons inspectors that Sadam eventually agreed to let in (they had to be withdrawn because Bush and Bliar (sic) had already agreed on an invasion).

As for the other lie about Iraq - helping the Iraqi people, we are all sitting on our hands whilst the people of Burma die because it would be disrespectful to the dictators who run the country to drop aid in. So then
Bombs good
Food and medical supplies bad.

The UN Weapons inspectors were from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)--who were neither concerned with, nor qualified to inspect for, Chemical or Biological Weapons. Chemical and/or Biological WMDs have been hardly mentioned by the largely antagonistic press--I wonder why? Could it be that some stockpiles were actually found? Only the Atomics are mentioned profusely--the press doesn't talk about things that refute its arguments about why we are there. Does the press have an agenda? You damn betcha.
"Those Who Cast the Votes Decide Nothing.
Those who Count the Votes decide everything"
--Joseph Stalin

Proud father of Gabrielle (28.), Zefyr (22), Leif (20), Katie (18.), Raven (14)

User avatar
azraelle
Duchess
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:16 am
Location: southern utah, usa

Postby azraelle on Sat May 10, 2008 2:47 am

Cambridge wrote:Yer, I agree, DanMc. Az, check your facts. The issue isn’t whether there were WMDs ever…the question is what proof did you have when this god-awful war started? Absolutely none. Keep in mind the question at issue at the time: Should we commit 4-5,000 (and counting) lives a year to a purposeless war and a trillion dollars a year…to what basically took place in history? Gengus Kahn was a bad-ass too, do we invade Mongolia today with the same reasoning?

I think Sheer's a straight-shooter.


Hmmm...I guess that the thousands of Iranian troops they were used against, not to mention the Iraqi Kurds, don't count as proof, huh??
"Those Who Cast the Votes Decide Nothing.
Those who Count the Votes decide everything"
--Joseph Stalin

Proud father of Gabrielle (28.), Zefyr (22), Leif (20), Katie (18.), Raven (14)

Cambridge
Master Wizard
 
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:07 am

Postby Cambridge on Sat May 10, 2008 3:10 am

Hmmm...I guess that the thousands of Iranian troops they were used against, not to mention the Iraqi Kurds, don't count as proof, huh??


That’s history, Az. If we could right every wrong in history we would go back and defeat Edward I in Scotland, or Henry V at Agincourt. But we can’t.

The question is, for what purposes were the reasons put forth? What the Bush administration told us was that they had WMDs that were a threat to us. They did not have such weapons at the time. So, the war was unjustified. The point that you want to make—that they once had chemical weapons—is of only academic interest. It was not true at the time, and, most importantly, it was not a justification to start so deadly and costly a war.

User avatar
Lena
Archangel
 
Posts: 29983
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Kentucky , USA

Postby Lena on Sat May 10, 2008 4:45 pm

bush lied , he wanted a war with iraq from day one of being president .Encouraged too by the traitors from the israel lobby .
Alive in spite of myself and looking at the world .........

Cambridge
Master Wizard
 
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:07 am

Postby Cambridge on Sun May 11, 2008 1:03 am

Lena wrote:bush lied , he wanted a war with iraq from day one of being president .Encouraged too by the traitors from the israel lobby .


I agree. The Israelis, bless their tiny ennsy-weensy hearts, wanted a US Air Force base in Baghdad and a US Naval base in Basra from day one. The neocons merged this motive with the motive to defeat China when it came a-calling for oil for it's now omnipresent demand…not hard to figure out. Bush and Cheney had this planned even before they were elected. And Powell confirmed this in interviews after he was Secretary of State.

User avatar
myron myron
Heroine
 
Posts: 6450
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:43 am

Postby myron myron on Tue May 13, 2008 7:24 pm


It is incontrovertible that Iraq under Saddam possessed biological and chemical WMD.

Iraq itself disclosed possession of substantial quantities (i.e, enough to kill millions) of biological and chemical agents in its 1998 Declaration to the UN. Shortly thereafter, Iraq expelled all UN weapons inspectors.

In its declaration to the UN in response to the final resolution before the present war, Iraq did not account for the aforesaid biological and chemical agents.

Before 9/11 - indeed, before Bush even became President - regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy under Clinton.

On March 16, 1988, Saddam's troops made widespread use of various chemical weapons against civilian Iraqi Kurds living in the Iraqi town of Halabja. There are still no final numbers as to casualties: estimated dead range from 4,000 to 10,000; and estimated maimed and injured exceed 10,000. Here's a description from Human Rights Watch:


The Iraqi counterattack began in the mid-morning of March 16, with conventional airstrikes and artillery shelling from the town of Sayed Sadeq to the north. Most families in Halabja had built primitive air-raid shelters near their homes. Some crowded into these, others into the government shelters, following the standard air-raid drills they had been taught since the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980. The first wave of air strikes appears to have included the use of napalm or phosphorus. "It was different from the other bombs," according to one witness. "There was a huge sound, a huge flame and it had very destructive ability. If you touched one part of your body that had been burned, your hand burned also. It caused things to catch fire." The raids continued unabated for several hours. "It was not just one raid, so you could stop and breathe before another raid started. It was just continuous planes, coming and coming. Six planes would finish and another six would come."

Those outside in the streets could see clearly that these were Iraqi, not Iranian aircraft, since they flew low enough for their markings to be legible. In the afternoon, at about 3:00, those who remained in the shelters became aware of an unusual smell. Like the villagers in the Balisan Valley the previous spring, they compared it most often to sweet apples, or to perfume, or cucumbers, although one man says that it smelled "very bad, like snake poison." No one needed to be told what the smell was.

The attack appeared to be concentrated in the northern sector of the city, well away from its military bases--although these, by now, had been abandoned. In the shelters, there was immediate panic and claustrophobia. Some tried to plug the cracks around the entrance with damp towels, or pressed wet cloths to their faces, or set fires. But in the end they had no alternative but to emerge into the streets. It wasgrowing dark and there were no streetlights; the power had been knocked out the day before by artillery fire. In the dim light, the people of Halabja could see nightmarish scenes. Dead bodies--human and animal--littered the streets, huddled in doorways, slumped over the steering wheels of their cars. Survivors stumbled around, laughing hysterically, before collapsing. Iranian soldiers flitted through the darkened streets, dressed in protective clothing, their faces concealed by gas masks. Those who fled could barely see, and felt a sensation "like needles in the eyes." Their urine was streaked with blood.

Those who had the strength fled toward the Iranian border. A freezing rain had turned the ground to mud, and many of the refugees went barefoot. Those who had been directly exposed to the gas found that their symptoms worsened as the night wore on. Many children died along the way and were abandoned where they fell.


Link: http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL3.htm



And there is no question but that Iraq used chemcial weapons against Iranian troops during the decade-long war between Iran and Iraq duruing the 1980's.

As brutal as chemical weapons may be, biological weapons are much worse for the following reasons:



BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

Biological agents are odourless, tasteless, and when dispersed in an aerosol cloud, are invisible to the human eye because the particle size of the aerosol is extremely small (1 to 5 micrometers or microns. Weight-for-weight, biological weapons are hundreds to thousands of times more potent than the most lethal chemical weapon, meaning that even small amounts (e.g., a few kilograms) could be used with devastating effect, whereas hundreds or thousands of tons of chemical agents could be required for militarily significant operations.

EFFECTS

Biological agents contain either living organisms or their derivatives, such as toxins, which cause disease or death. Living organisms can multiply within the living targets to produce their effects, while toxins cannot reproduce themselves. Toxins are generally more lethal, and act relatively quickly causing incapacitation or death within minutes or hours. Living organisms (microbial pathogens), require incubation periods of 24 hours to 6 weeks between infection and appearance of symptoms. This incubation period places limits on their battlefield utility, but means that biological weapons can continue to have a significant impact many weeks after the initial attack (eg by causing a long-term pandemic). Likewise, this delayed incubation period may mean that a biological attack can be completed before those on the ground have realised that it has occurred, or even take place entirely covertly, the effects being confused with a natural outbreak of disease.

A biological attack can contaminate an area for between several hours and several weeks, compromising equipment and forcing troops to wear highly restrictive protective clothing (reducing their efficiency) and / or take antidotes whose side effects remain largely unknown.

Biological attacks could cause widespread panic amongst both military and civilian populations. The very large number of potential casualties could place huge burdens on medical facilities and overwhelm military resources. The relatively poor warning devices available against biological attack and the potential delayed effects of some agents make mis-identification of the agent or agents used more likely, leading to the failure of defence measures. One US Army study suggested that a Scud attack with an anthrax BW warhead would see the effectiveness of military units downwind fall by 90% if the attack were not correctly detected. With prior detection, the study estimated a fall in effectiveness of only 20%. The same report noted that:

A Scud missile warhead filled with botulinum could contaminate an area of 3,700 square kilometers (based on ideal weather conditions and an effective dispersal mechanism), or 16 times greater than the same warhead filled with [the nerve agent] Sarin. By the time symptoms occur, treatment has little chance of success. Rapid field detection methods for biological warfare agents do not exist.

Perhaps even more than chemical weapons, the intimidatory nature of biological weapons is such that an attack or the threat of an attack is likely to cause wholesale disruption or paralysis of civil and economic activity in the affected area. The psychological effects on civilian populations is almost guaranteed to cause panic or terror.

METHODS OF DELIVERY

The high stresses, gravitational forces (G-forces) and heat generated by the acceleration and re-entry of ballistic missiles makes them a less-than-ideal method of delivering live biological agents. Considerable technical efforts are required to package live BW agents in a missile warhead and ensure that the agent is dispersed at the correct height and angle of delivery to create an airborne aerosol. However despite these technical challenges, recent UN revelations that Iraq may have retained 16 ballistic missiles armed with BW warheads in violation of UN Resolutions underlines the serious potential threat posed by ballistic missiles armed with BW agents.

POTENTIAL TARGETS

The main potential targets of biological weapons include: troop concentrations; dispersal areas; logistics centres; command and control centres; air bases; ports; key infrastructure installations (oil and power facilities, desalination plants, etc), and civilian population centres.

The contamination of water supplies would seriously hamper the ability of an army to wage war. Biological weapons also have naval applications. An attack on a ship would contaminate the vessel and crew, reducing or destroying its operational efficiency. This would be particularly useful against large ships that can withstand multiple conventional hits (such as the large US fleet aircraft carriers).

Significantly, in exercises during the summer of 1995, Iranian forces used helicopters to spray their own ships with aerosol liquids, suggesting the development of a capability to use biological and/or chemical weapons against oil tanker movements in the strategically vital Persian Gulf.

LIMITATIONS

Unlike chemical weapons, biological agents are not as controllable or predictable in their effects and are even more dependent than chemical agents upon temperature, weather and topographical conditions. Thus there is always a major risk of contaminating the wrong area. However, most biological agents must be inhaled or ingested to be effective: unlike many chemical agents, skin contact is unlikely to cause infection, making it easier to defend against biological agents than chemical agents if the agent can be correctly detected.

Most biological agents also degrade rapidly, although dry agents such as anthrax spores and some toxins, are persistent. Such agents could also pose long-lasting hazards, (anthrax spores may persist in the soil in deadly form for decades), meaning that areas an attacker wishes to move across or occupy may remain contaminated, necessitating the use of protective equipment and / or decontamination for attacking forces. The weaponisation (storage and delivery) of biological agents also poses technical hurdles.

EXAMPLES

Potential Viral agents include smallpox, yellow fever, equine encephalitis and influenza, which may be genetically modified to increase their effectiveness.

Bacterial agents such as anthrax, meloidosis, pneumonic plague and glanders have incubation periods of between one and five days and are usually fatal without swift treatment.

Toxins include botulinum toxin, which produces an acute muscular paralysis resulting in death of animals or humans; ricin, derived from castor bean plants whose lethality is that of nerve gasses, and mycotoxins which produce nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, skin irritation and potential fatalities.


Link: http://library.thinkquest.org/C005719/page7.htm



Beginning in 1991, Saddam Hussein's government disclosed to the UN that Iraq possessed substantial quantities of the worst of the biological agents described above. See pages 97 through 135 of the 6 March 2003 UN Report http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/UNMOVIC%20UDI%20Working%20Document%206%20March%2003.pdf

In 1998, Iraq unilaterally expelled the UN weapons inspectors. As noted in the following excerpt from UN Security Council Report S/1999/401 dated 9 April 1999, Iraq's biological weapons program had not been dismantled when the UN inspectors were expelled:



C. Biological weapons

33. As the result of Iraq's decision of 5 August 1998 to stop the Commission's disarmament activities in Iraq, the Commission was unable to continue its disarmament inspections until returning to Iraq on 17 November 1998. Subsequently, three biological disarmament inspections were sent to Iraq to resume investigation of various aspects of Iraq's proscribed biological warfare programme.

34. An inspection team was in Iraq from 1 to 6 December 1998 and pursued the investigation on microbial agent research for biological warfare purposes and Iraq's planning for biological warfare agent production and weaponization. The team conducted numerous interviews with Iraq's representatives. These interviews yielded no new information that would enable clarification of outstanding issues.

35. A second inspection team was in Iraq from 6 to 10 December 1998, and held discussions with Iraqi officials on bacterial growth media for Iraq's biological warfare programme. The team requested Iraq to provide several specific documents to support its declaration, including a logbook with records of relevant imports for the biological warfare programme. Iraq did not provide the documents requested. The team also revealed to Iraq documentary evidence of the import of growth media for the biological warfare programme, previously not included in Iraq's declarations. Subsequently, Iraq admitted that this undeclared import had occurred, and as a result Iraq has recently provided to Council members an informal paper in which it has revised its previous statements on the material balance of growth media.

36. Another inspection team was in Iraq from 10 to 16 December 1998 to explore the consumption of growth media (yeast extract) by Iraq, and investigated issues related to its importation and possible connection with the biological warfare programme. The team was able to clarify aspects of the end use of this importation of growth media.

. . .

C. Biological activities

48. A non-resident inspection team was sent to Iraq from 3 to 10 December 1998 to conduct in-depth inspections of key biological sites. Iraq took actions to hinder the conduct of these inspections (S/1998/1172 and Corr.1).

49. During the period when the Commission's monitoring activities in Iraq were possible, the biological monitoring team carried out some 84 inspections of biological facilities and related sites. In addition, 12 inspections were carried out in conjunction with other weapons disciplines. Monitoring inspections discovered undeclared dual-use equipment, such as filter presses, biological safety cabinets and a fermenter control unit. Dual-use material, such as growth media which had not been declared by Iraq, was also discovered.


Link: http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/sres401eng.htm



After 9/11, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a Resolution demanding Iraq's compliance with all previous UN Resolutions. Yet Iraq failed to disclose the amounts of biological agents it still possessed from what the Iraqis themselves had previously disclosed; nor did Iraq account for the disposition of the unaccounted for biological agents. Again, this is based on what Saddam's government itself admitted possessing.

And we know that Saddam had nuclear ambitions dating back to the early 1980's, when Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor built by the French for Saddam.

During the more than six months advance warning before the United States invaded -- resulting from bickering over UN Security Council Resolutions -- Saddam had plenty of time to cover his tracks.

Anyone who contends that Iraq did not possess WMD is a fool or a knave or both.

Last edited by myron myron on Tue May 13, 2008 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
myron myron
Heroine
 
Posts: 6450
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:43 am

Postby myron myron on Tue May 13, 2008 7:32 pm


Because the liberal media and the Democrats have repeated the canard so incessantly, it has become conventional wisdom in some circles that George W. Bush "lied" about Iraq's possession of WMD before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The liberal media and the Democrats conveniently and dishonestly ignore the numerous unequivocal statements made by Democrats that Iraq possessed WMD, both before Bush was elected and during Bush's Presidency.

Following are only some of the Democrats' statements:


"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..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"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

"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 Bill 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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"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..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), 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."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002




If Bush "lied," then all the Democrats quoted above must have lied as well.



Next

Return to Politics And Social Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests