[stoned budda]

Originally Posted by auntiesocial

Let me know when Clinton or Gore go to the UN with fake cartoon pictures of non-existent "mobile weapons labs", fake evidence of nerve gas, and fake satellite photos of empty storage facilities.

A lot of people from both sides of the isle trusted Powell, including me. He and GWB used that trust to trick America and her allies into a bullshit war. He is a traitor and should be put in front of a military firing squad.

Liberals always want to ignore those pesky facts and twist the story to blame George Bush and those mean lying republicans for the war and the elusive WMD's. So i guess i have to post this again... oh well.

Re: If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008...-saddams-iraq/

Theres some good video of dems making ass's of them selves on the link.

B.J. Clinton and Al Gore repeatedly condemned President Reagan and President Bush for refusing to go to war with Iraq, for refusing to take sides in the Iran-Iraq War, for attempting to engage constructively with Iraq, and for limiting sanctions against Iraq.
They repeatedly cataloged Saddam’s atrocities, his weapons of mass destruction programs, his war crimes, and his support for international Muslim terrorists. And they repeatedly demanded action to bring about regime change in Iraq.
They accused the Bush administration, which was responsible for ousting Iraqi forces from Kuwait, of being soft on Iraq, soft on WMDs, and soft on terror.
They demanded action.
President Clinton ordered limited and impotent military strikes against Iraq every time he was facing a domestic scandal. Clinton signed the Liberation of Iraq Act and then did virtually nothing to implement Iraq’s liberation.
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and the majority of Democrat politicians repeatably condemned Saddam Hussein as a tyrant, a war-monger, and a supporter of international Muslim terrorism; warned that he was intent on conquering the Middle East and imposing his will on the rest of the world; and did nothing about it!
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and the majority of Democrat politicians supported George W. Bush in finally going to war against Saddam Hussein.
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and the majority of Democrat politicians say that they are complete and utter idiots who were tricked by a man they think is a moron into believing that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, a war-monger, and a supporter of international Muslim terrorism, and that he was intent on conquering the Middle East and imposing his will on the rest of the world.

* * * * *

Al Gore outlines future Clinton administration’s policy towards Iraq, including support for Iraqi democratic resistance, political and economic freedom, and freedom from tyranny. September 29, 1992:
Al Gore condemns George Bush for not putting an end to Saddam Hussein support for terrorism or his nuclear weapons program. September 29, 1992:
Al Gore claims 1,400 terrorists in Iraq prior to Gulf War :
Al Gore condemns George Bush for not putting an end to Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism or his nuclear weapons program. 1992:
Al Gore condemns George Bush for not putting an end to Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism or his nuclear weapons program. [Black & Right TV]:


U.S. President Bill Clinton Orders Missile Attack on Iraq, September 3, 1996:
“Our objectives are limited but clear: To make Saddam pay a price for the latest act of brutality, reducing his ability to threaten his neighbors and America’s interests.”
U.S. President Bill Clinton Orders Missile Attack on Iraq, June 26, 1993 :
“These actions were directed against the Iraqi government, which was responsible for the assassination plot. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated repeatedly that he will resort to terrorism or aggression if left unchecked. Our intent was to target Iraq’s capacity to support violence against the United States and other nations, and to deter Saddam Hussein from supporting such outlaw behavior in the future. Therefore, we directed our action against the facility associated with Iraq’s support of terrorism, while making every effort to minimize the loss of innocent life.”
U.S. President Bill Clinton to Saddam, January 27, 1998:
“You cannot defy the will of the world“:
“Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job finding and destroying more of Iraq’s arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf war. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.
“I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, “You cannot defy the will of the world,” and when I say to him, “You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
Democrats for War against Iraq. Compilation:
John Kerry’s statements on War against Iraq:
Saddam’s Support for Muslim Terrorists:
ABC News (January 14, 1999) - “Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden’s long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan’s fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”
“ABC News has learned that in December [1998], an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.”

* * * * *
The Iraq Liberation Act
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE、OCTOBER 31, 1998
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT:
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council’s efforts to keep the current regime’s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq’s diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.

* * * * *

U.S. President Bill Clinton Orders Attack on Iraq, December 16, 1998 :
“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.
“And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”
U.S. President Clinton on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (signed into law by Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998 ) stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” The legislation also allocated $97,000,000 to aid Iraqi democratic opposition organizations.
The first part of this video is comments made on November 15, 1998 and the second clip is from a December 16, 1998 speech.
Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, responds to a question about the Iraq Liberation Act, 1998:
Sandy Berger , Clinton’s National Security Advisor [Convicted Felon who stole and destroyed Clinton's security-related documents from the National Security Archives], responds to a question about the Iraq Liberation Act. , 1998:

* * * * *

Demcocrats call for War against Iraq:
“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, at the Pentagon
“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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998, following a Pentagon briefing
“Iraq is a long way from USA 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.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998, Ohio State University
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser (and convicted felon), Feb 18, 1998, Ohio State University
“We 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 Senators including the following Democrats: Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and Joseph Lieberman, 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, Letter posted on Pelosi’s congressional website.
“There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he 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, Chicago
“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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002, Remarks to a Senate committee on that date.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002, The Commonwealth Club, San Francisco
“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, Johns Hopkins University
“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; and K.K.K.), Oct. 3, 2002, U.S. Senate debate over going to war against Iraq.
“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, U.S. Senate debate over going to war against Iraq.
“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, U.S. Senate debate over going to war against Iraq.
“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”
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002, U.S. Senate debate over going to war against Iraq.
“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), U.S. Senate debate over going to war against Iraq.
“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, Georgetown University.
“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 | Source
“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 | Source
“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
“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 | Source
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“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 | Source“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 | Source“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 | Source“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 | Source“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 | Source“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 | Source

* * * * *

Demolishing the WMD Myth
By David Thibault
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
January 30, 2006
This isn’t the type of commentary about weapons of mass destruction that you have seen so often over the last 18 months, from media liberals like the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, who at every turn have insisted that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs or links to al Qaeda when he was routed from office by U.S. and coalition military forces in 2003.
Armed only with the conclusions of United Nations and Bush administration-appointed weapons inspectors that no significant WMD caches had been discovered in Iraq, these media misfits and the liberal apparatus in Congress has had a field day castigating President Bush for his decision to invade Iraq.
Nobody states the Democrats’ weak-kneed response (What would F.D.R. and Harry Truman think?) better than the Massachusetts Democratic senator that the party entrusted with its presidential nomination in 2004 - John Kerry.
“Let’s be clear: there is no question that Americans were misled into war in Iraq. Simply put, they were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when he did not,” Kerry proclaimed on Nov. 14, 2005, in a speech — and you have to give him points for audacity here — meant to honor American veterans.
The website of U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House minority leader, still claims in a release dated Jan. 12, 2005, that “President Bush has refused to concede what has been obvious for months: the primary justification for the invasion of Iraq was not supported by fact.”
Enter Georges Sada, one of Saddam Hussein’s top generals and military advisors, whose book, “Saddam’s Secrets - How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein,” is causing quite a stir and may or may not be giving Kerry and Pelosi heartburn.
Sada is unsparing in his criticism of Republican President George H. W. Bush for failing to finish the job in the first Persian Gulf War and rid the world of Saddam. And he blasts away at Democratic President Bill Clinton for his weak responses to terrorist attacks and the Saddam threat in the 1990s.
Not only does Sada praise the current President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, stating that U.S.-led coalition forces “did us a great service,” he demolishes the myth that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no international threat.
Sada details a frightening passage in which Saddam asked for his advice about attacking Israel with chemical weapons — the nerve gases Tabun, Sarin 1 and Sarin 2. He also explains how Saddam managed to smuggle his weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and into Syria, following a natural disaster in northwestern Syria on June 4, 2002.
“[W]hen Syrian president Bashar al-Assad asked for help from Jordan and Iraq, Saddam knew what he would do.” Sada writes. “For him, the disaster in Syria was a gift, and there, posing as shipments of supplies and equipment sent from Iraq to aid the relief effort, were Iraq’s WMDs.”
The author confirmed these details with one of the pilots of the 747 jets that were gutted on the inside in order to store the WMDs, before being flown from Iraq to Syria.
Sada has much more to say in the book, the first substantive, reliable account of how Saddam made fools of the international community, U.S. liberal politicians and the media establishment who were determined to create the self-fulfilling prophecy that there were no WMDs in Iraq. We know that that these groups and individuals did it for political gain — it hasn’t worked so far — instead of using their common sense and pointing the finger at the real enemy.
Sada’s book, while adding crucial details on how Saddam got rid of his WMDs, was no news flash to Cybercast News Service. Please read our own comprehensive account, reported by Scott Wheeler on Oct. 4, 2004, of Saddam’s procurement of weapons of mass destruction as well as his extensive links to al Qaeda.
It should not surprise any of our readers to learn that Gen. Sada is scheduled to meet on Monday, Jan. 30, with a member of my cracker-jack staff, Sherrie Gossett.
During his speech last Nov. 14, Kerry tried to explain the “distinction between being wrong and being dishonest.” Kerry, Pelosi and most Democrats in the House and Senate should have a pretty fair idea now about what’s wrong and dishonest, because they’ve been both.

* * * * *

Hillary: Vote for Me, I was Duped

Washington Babylon Ken Silverstein Harper’s Magazine, May 6, 2007 Late last week, Senator Hillary Clinton offered a bill that would effectively revoke the 2002 congressional authorization that allowed the Bush Administration to wage war in Iraq, and require the president to convince Congress to re-approve the war this October. It’s the latest step taken by Clinton to establish herself as the Democratic Party’s anti-war candidate. If she’d only known in 2002 what she knows now, she has repeatedly said, she would never have supported the earlier resolution.
At its essence, Clinton is saying that the Bush Administration tricked her into voting for the war resolution. “I Was Duped” is hardly an inspiring slogan, and in Hillary’s case it’s a thoroughly disingenuous one as well. She wasn’t duped. She was playing the polls, and at the time she concluded that a vote for war was the smart bet.Take a look at Clinton’s October 10, 2002, floor speech in which she authorized the use of force against Iraq. She didn’t just side with the Bush Administration, she more or less endorsed its entire case for war:

Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program . . .
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.

While acknowledging that there was no evidence to tie Saddam to the September 11 attacks, she said he had “given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,” and went on to say:

This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make–any vote that may lead to war should be hard–but I cast it with conviction. Over eleven years have passed since the U.N. called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret . . . A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein–this is your last chance–disarm or be disarmed.

“I Was Duped” is hardly an inspiring slogan and in Hillary’s case it’s a thoroughly disingenuous one as well.
Dick Cheney could hardly have put it better. Now compare Clinton’s remarks with those made by other prominent Democrats during the runup to war. Even if they believed that Saddam had WMDs, many of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues opposed the war and challenged the administration’s case for an invasion. Take Al Gore during a September 23, 2002 speech in San Francisco:

The resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. Here’s why I say that; we know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country. As yet, we have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist groups. If the administration has evidence that he has, please present it, because that would change the way we all look at this thing.

Senator Edward Kennedy’s speech in Washington on September 27 rejected just about every argument tossed out by President Bush.

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. I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years. And the administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect Al Qaeda and Iraq . . . To the contrary, there is no clear and convincing pattern of Iraqi relations with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

When Hillary cast her “yes” vote “with conviction” a few weeks later, Kennedy and 22 other Democratic senators (and a majority of Democrats in the House) rejected the use-of-force resolution. “The question,” Senator Patrick Leahy said during the debate on the vote, “is not whether Saddam Hussein should be disarmed; it is how imminent is this threat and how should we deal with it?” Leahy continued:

The resolution now before the Senate leaves the door open to act alone, even absent an imminent threat. It surrenders to the President authority which the Constitution explicitly reserves for the Congress . . . Many respected and knowledgeable people–former senior military officers and diplomats among them–have expressed strong reservations about this resolution. They agree that if there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein is planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or one of our allies, the American people and the Congress would overwhelmingly support the use of American military power to stop him. But they have not seen that evidence, and neither have I. We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war.

Then there was Robert Byrd, who unsuccessfully tried to mount a filibuster against the resolution, which he described as “the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again”:

The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States.

Byrd rejected the administration’s arguments about Saddam posing an imminent WMD threat and noted that no one “has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack.” He also said that any overthrow of the Iraqi regime “would require a long term occupation,” and that this “kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world’s last remaining superpower behind her.”
So here are some questions for Hillary:

• Other Democrats knew. Why didn’t you?
• Why did you trust President Bush more than you trusted top figures in your own party?
• Did you, in fact, vote for the war resolution on the basis of polling numbers and political calculations about an expected future run for the presidency?
• And finally, if you won’t vote your conscience on questions of war and peace, when will you?

The answer to that last question is “never.” A recent Washington Post story on Mark Penn, Clinton’s pollster, described him as taking “taking increasing control” of her presidential campaign. “Armed with voluminous data that he collects through his private polling firm, Penn has become involved in virtually every move Clinton makes, with the result that the campaign reflects the chief strategist as much as the candidate,” the Post said. “If Clinton seems cautious, it may be because Penn has made caution a science, repeatedly testing issues to determine which ones are safe and widely agreed upon.”

* * * * *

Al Gore’s Lies/Insanity, 2004:
“I think there were millions just like me, who genuinely, in spite of whatever partisanship they may have felt prior to that time, genuinely felt like they wanted George W. Bush to lead all of us in America wisely and well.
“And the reason I’m recalling those feelings now is because those are the feelings that were betrayed by this president! He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America, he took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!
“And so I say to you in closing my friends, in the year of 2004, the truth shall rise again!”