Slashdot Mirror

Doesn't one have to actually do something wrong to be considered a war criminal? I suppose you could call Obama a war criminal for intentionally causing ISIS by pulling out of Iraq, but the Iraqi president didn't really give him much of a choice on the matter.

If you are trying to claim that Bush is a war criminal, I would like for you to point to exactly what laws were broken, and by who exactly. After all, congress declared both wars under his presidency, so everyone in congress (which was mostly D at the time) is just a fallible for believing Saddam's claim that he had WMD and was refusing entry to weapons inspectors. Though I suppose if you had some kind of time machine, you might be able to stop the war, but frankly, when so many believe that the weapons exist, how would you stop it?

Oh, and the weapons that we thought were there, they were found, and they really were there, but don't let facts get in the way of your sound bite.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/gover...
http://politics.slashdot.org/c...

http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Though on reflection, you could have just as easily been speaking of many other presidents that oversaw wars, I don't think any president of the US has ever committed war crimes though.

In fact, I don't know that many presidents ever even served in any wars...but I could be wrong.

Portugal exported some uranium ore to Iran during the early 1980s, ammounting to close to 300 tons. However, its mines have been abandoned since late 1980s to early 1990s. From http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/s-1997-779-att-1.htm :

Iraq procures "yellowcake" uranium from Portugal, Niger, and Brazil.

However, its mine have been abandoned since late 1980s to early 1990s, mainly because of economic viability and not as much as from puny environmentalist concerns as claimed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Portugal

I'm not sure that you're 100% right in your criticism.

One of the favorite forgottens of the '90s conflict and its aftermath with Iraq:

While on patrol, a group of soldiers literally stumbled over a large circle of pipe out in the desert attached to an innocuous facility. Being a news junkie - and working in a related field at the time - this one hit me like a ton of bricks. It was broadcast late night, but because Joe Reported never really got it, or so I speculate, it was one of those not-often repeated stories (again, anomalous) but its implication did become part of "what everyone knew."

http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-hide-seek-9-91.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117790.400-iraq-clings-to-its-nuclear-secrets-.html

If the question is why were so many willing to believe in WMDs in the first place, this time around, there it is. That we did so is shameful, but it wasn't without cause.

To have been lied to by our leaders is beyond infuriating. But we've also been played by them in another way. What didn't come out in popular media until much later - that I, a news junkie, am aware of - is Saddam stupidly bluffing and intimating that he did or could possess such capability in his responses to the West. He just didn't believe that Dubya would do anything about it.

I guess my point is to emphasize that we weren't just lied to, and we weren't just sheep to believe the lies. We were misled by guys who later decided to take the heat as liars instead of guys who were too stupid to recognize bluff from data. I guess I'd damned well be neither, but if I had to admit to the American public that a) I'm a lying politician or b) I'm a politician dumber than Saddam, - well, let's just say I can maybe see how the choice was made.

So, we weren't just sheep believing lies. We were sheep to believe the under-qualified. I'm guilty of not buying it until Colin Powell supported the position. Prior to that for me, it was easy: claims by idiots in government. So I bleated along complacently because I thought Powell's judgement would be different - trustworthy. I forgot - as did anyone like me - this simple adage: Tell me who your friends are, I'll tell you who you are. I should have known if one would get pulled up or one would get pulled down if you put Cheney and Powell alone in a room together.

As far as your personal paranoid fantasy - take heart. You nailed it in one. For a bunch of fancy words outlining this, see an earlier post of mine in this topic, if you care. Not claiming to have proved anything, but I did use a lot of correctly spelled words - your view is neither uniquely yours nor fantasy - paranoid or any other kind, IMO.

Well, those aren't conspiracy theories.

"Axis of evil" is rhetoric, just as much now as it was then. Accurate? Maybe, maybe not. The point is that it's just political rhetoric, not a conspiracy theory.

As for WMD, to requote something I've said before, which applies here:

To quote something I've said before, but which applies here:

[w]hile I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998. The intelligence capabilities of most western European nations, notably the UNSEC members, the UN as an organization, the US, UK, and so on, all believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of the WMD that were unaccounted for after 1998 when the inspectors left. After 7 years of utter lack of cooperation, deception, and all manner of lies from Iraq about its WMD programs, there was zero reason to believe anything changed for the better once it was left unsupervised. Over 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq since March 2003. Entire fleets of fighter aircraft were found *completely buried* in remote areas of the desert. There is no reason to believe the hundreds of tons of remaining WMD that was unaccounted for with absolutely no acceptable proof of its disposition, combined with Iraq's lies and deception, didn't remain in Iraq's possession. Likely, it is now in the hands of nations like Syria.

The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast. It was a VERY RISKY proposition, but the threat of Panislamic radicalism is a very, very real one. And no, it's not something we "created". It's something that has come to this point for a variety of reasons, but the US and/or West isn't exclusively or even mostly to blame. (Is it impossible for people to believe that there are factions of people in the world who disagree about a great many things and who desire to kill those who don't agree with them?) And, FYI, we know we have problems with Saudi Arabia, but we hope for a domino affect, and also, we don't overtly attack official allies (for those who ask "Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, then?").

The big differences are intent. E.g., intent to kill innocent civilians vs not. Intent to allow people to live in a free(r) society vs not. These are very important distinctions to people who aren't pure moral relativists who think that everyone is just as "right" or justified in doing something as someone else.

While WMD wasn't the real "reason" we went to Iraq - the reasons were MUCH broader and not about "Iraq" per se - it's quite reasonable that the administration and planners would expect to find caches of WMD there, thus justifying the action on its face.

I realize you're talking more about nuclear, here, but if you're going to make incorrect claims about Iraq with regard to WMD, you should take a look at the following and educate yourself:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/

And as for nuclear problems, we now have Iran to worry about as well. If you choose to "blame" the US or US policy on any troubles we have with Iran, feel free. I'm just somewhat dumbfounded by the view that others outside the US are apparently incapable of doing "bad" things on their own without provocation of the evil US, especially given the thousands of years of human history.

As for "secret prisons", again, to requote something I said a couple of days ago for the sake of expediency:

I believe there are extraordinary circumstances where military or intelligence components may want to keep the capture of an enemy completely secret, and that this need

1) Where is Osama?

My own personal belief, and the prevailing belief of many in the intelligence community, is somewhere in the regions surrounding the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

If you mean "where is he" as in "why haven't we captured him yet", well, it's because we haven't found him. As to "why", there are many reasons. I don't blame Clinton, but a general lack of human intelligence is one major reason. Both parties have been guilty of being tempted by the expansion of electronic and satellite surveillance, at the severe detriment of human intelligence.

(Some believe we purposefully have not "found" him, or even that the US was in a relationship of sorts with bin Laden on 9/11, to make it appear that bin Laden was the mastermind when in reality it was Cheney & Co. That, of course, is utter tripe.)

2) Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

To quote something I've said before, but which applies here:

Well, while I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998. The intelligence capabilities of most western European nations, notably the UNSEC members, the UN as an organization, the US, UK, and so on, all believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of the WMD that were unaccounted for after 1998 when the inspectors left. After 7 years of utter lack of cooperation, deception, and all manner of lies from Iraq about its WMD programs, there was zero reason to believe anything changed for the better once it was left unsupervised. Over 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq since March 2003. Entire fleets of fighter aircraft were found *completely buried* in remote areas of the desert. There is no reason to believe the hundreds of tons of remaining WMD that was unaccounted for with absolutely no acceptable proof of its disposition, combined with Iraq's lies and deception, didn't remain in Iraq's possession. Likely, it is now in the hands of nations like Syria.

The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast. It was a VERY RISKY proposition, but the threat of Panislamic radicalism is a very, very real one. And no, it's not something we "created". It's something that has come to this point for a variety of reasons, but the US and/or West isn't exclusively or even mostly to blame. (Is it impossible for people to believe that there are factions of people in the world who disagree about a great many things and who desire to kill those who don't agree with them?) And, FYI, we know we have problems with Saudi Arabia, but we hope for a domino affect, and also, we don't overtly attack official allies (for those who ask "Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, then?").

The big differences are intent. E.g., intent to kill innocent civilians vs not. Intent to allow people to live in a free(r) society vs not. These are very important distinctions to people who aren't pure moral relativists who think that everyone is just as "right" or justified in doing something as someone else.

While WMD wasn't the real "reason" we went to Iraq - the reasons were MUCH broader and not about "iraq" per se - it's quite reasonable that the administration and planners would expect to find caches of WMD there, thus justifying the action on its face.

I realize you're talking more about nuclear, here, but if you're going to make incorrect claims about Iraq with regard to WMD, you should take a look at the following and educate yourself:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/ [iraqwatch.org]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/ [globalsecurity.org]

And as for nuclear

If I wanted to play your game, I'd cut through your lies by saying that neither Clinton nor Kerry invaded Iraq.

Now you change your charge to "but they didn't invade Iraq based on THEIR lies." Nice. So the Clinton admin was lying, John Kerry was lying, German intelligence was lying, the U.N. was passing resolutions and sending in inspectors for no reason, Newspapers and Policy institutions were lying, and of course Bush is the smartest person in the world "in this one instance" because he was able to hide the truth from everyone!

For the record, the senate *did* find Clinton guilty of lying, they just didn't remove him from office over it. But while we are on the subject of Congress, why did the Democrats vote for the war in Iraq? Were they duped by this "all of the sudden intelligent" Bush? You mean they didn't listen to Clinton and Albright? You mean they didn't see the inspectors being kicked out by Saddam time and time again? They were all duped, right? Keep on lying...

Here is a snippet from "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" when Bush first took office:

"
  IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD): AN EMERGING CHALLENGE FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

By Michael Eisenstadt
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
POLICYWATCH, NO. 515
29 January 2001

Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are emerging as one of the first major foreign policy challenges of the Bush administration. Free of weapons monitors and with sanctions eroding, Iraq has resumed its aggressive policies. After the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada last September, it briefly moved elements of four to five divisions toward its border with Syria in a show of solidarity, and on several occasions since then, Saddam Husayn has threatened to destroy Israel. Then, earlier this month, his older son Uday reasserted Iraq's claim to Kuwait. With its conventional military capabilities hobbled by two bloody wars and more than a decade of sanctions, Iraq's retained WMD capabilities assume renewed salience.
"

From: http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/winep-policy wtch515-1-29-01.htm

I just don't know how to deal with that. Remember those "weapons of mass destruction" supposedly located in Iraq? They never existed. And this guy is worried about a nuclear attack against the US? Delivered how, exactly?

Well, while I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998. The intelligence capabilities of most western European nations, notably the UNSEC members, the UN as an organization, the US, UK, and so on, all believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of the WMD that were unaccounted for after 1998 when the inspectors left. After 7 years of utter lack of cooperation, deception, and all manner of lies from Iraq about its WMD programs, there was zero reason to believe anything changed for the better once it was left unsupervised. Over 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq since March 2003. Entire fleets of fighter aircraft were found *completely buried* in remote areas of the desert. There is no reason to believe the hundreds of tons of remaining WMD that was unaccounted for with absolutely no acceptable proof of its disposition, combined with Iraq's lies and deception, didn't remain in Iraq's possession. Likely, it is now in the hands of nations like Syria.

The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast. It was a VERY RISKY proposition, but the threat of Panislamic radicalism is a very, very real one. And no, it's not something we "created". It's something that has come to this point for a variety of reasons, but the US and/or West isn't exclusively or even mostly to blame. (Is it impossible for people to believe that there are factions of people in the world who disagree about a great many things and who desire to kill those who don't agree with them?) And, FYI, we know we have problems with Saudi Arabia, but we hope for a domino affect, and also, we don't overtly attack official allies (for those who ask "Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, then?").

The big differences are intent. E.g., intent to kill innocent civilians vs not. Intent to allow people to live in a free(r) society vs not. These are very important distinctions to people who aren't pure moral relativists who think that everyone is just as "right" or justified in doing something as someone else.

While WMD wasn't the real "reason" we went to Iraq - the reasons were MUCH broader and not about "iraq" per se - it's quite reasonable that the administration and planners would expect to find caches of WMD there, thus justifying the action on its face.

I realize you're talking more about nuclear, here, but if you're going to make incorrect claims about Iraq with regard to WMD, you should take a look at the following and educate yourself:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/

And as for nuclear problems, we now have Iran to worry about as well. If you choose to "blame" the US or US policy on any troubles we have with Iran, feel free. I'm just somewhat dumbfounded by the view that others outside the US are apparently incapable of doing "bad" things on their own without provocation of the evil US, especially given the thousands of years of human history.

And as an aside, no, dealing with "terrorists" (I realize that is a vague term), especially in other nations, is not a problem for civil authorities and courts. It is a military problem, and one of critical national defense interests. Perhaps one day Europe will wake up, too, since they've got the growing ranks of militiant Panislamic radicals practically on their doorstep.

I will say that you've laid out an eloquent defense of the opposing position. I also feel that Bush did have a goal of invading Iraq no matter what, and the WMD issue happened to be a convenient one. However, I'm not opposed to the progress of the war.

Ah, how soon we forget. The UN weapons inspectors found WMDs in Iraq

Then document it. I've read the Dueffler report. Even despite being a Bush-chosen war hawk, the best he could come up with was possible low-level "programs", and even that is doubted, given the evidence cited, by most experts.

"Iraq told the United Nations in 1995 it had produced 30,000 liters of biological agents, including anthrax and other toxins it could put on missiles."- CNN

"Despite the fact that no cache of mass destruction weapons has been found in Iraq, a number of crucial questions about Iraq's past weapon efforts - raised by nearly a decade of U.N. inspections - remain unanswered. Today, much of the world has concluded that Iraq's erstwhile arsenal of illegal weaponry was not an imminent threat to regional or international security. But as late as May 2003, U.N. inspectors catalogued an array of chemical and biological agents, munitions and missilry that they believed might still be in the country."- Iraq Watch

I trust those two links will be sufficient, there are plenty more if you really need it.

Hussein never accounted for them

Hussein did account for them; unfortunately, his account was "we unilaterally destroyed them". UNMOVIC/UNSCOM had detected evidence that various chemical weapons had been destroyed in the locations stated, but were unable to assess the quantity. When we invaded, they were working on a way to try and assess the quantity.

Well that was a very humanitarian thing for him to do... ;-) Too bad he didn't document things much better or bring in international observers. I wonder why not?

Intelligence agencies all over the world felt Iraq had these WMDs

That's why the IAEA was near certifying Iraq as nuclear free, and why UNMOVIC was reporting significant process, right? Why the heads of both organizations were mad at us for invading? Why the US was pretty much laughed at for pushing many of the claims, such as the "uranium from Africa" and "aluminum tubes" claims. Any of this sound familiar to you?

"Nuclear" and "WMD" are not synonymous. Nice non-sequitor though. I agree that the Bush administration was wrong about Iraq's nuclear ambitions, but the biological/chemical aspect of things was plenty bad enough.

There were plenty of terrorists in Iraq.

Surely you will cite them, then!

Sure, from an article you linked :-)

According to Mr Hage, the Iraqis offered a package of "concessions" to the US administration:
[snip](including)
- Handing over Abdul Rahman Yasin, a top al-Qaeda suspect wanted in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
-BBC

You do realize this is getting off topic like I asked not to get into right???

A president vetos a bill if he disagrees with parts of the bill. If he has a friendly congress, what are the chances of the congress providing him something he disagrees with? That's why he hasn't veto'd anything.

Without the excessive spending (and deficit) the US (and a good part of the world) would be in a depression following 9/11 and related financial problems (dot-com bust). You have heard the saying, "to make money, you have to spend money."

If we didn't deficit spend, we would have to find some other way to provide the money. That would involve cutting additional spending (which of course then he would get blamed for when someone does get some government provided intitlement) or finding another source of income (additional taxes).

As far as deficits go, Bush is already starting to reduce spending, thanks in part to gains in the system allow additional tax revenue to be gained.

I say again...at the time we went to war...evidence at the time indicated there were WMD (evidence presummed to be accurate at the time - and yes we all know the evidence is wrong). All our allies also agreed with this. Decisions on this were a gamble.

If we had not done so and WMD had been present, can you guarantee that they wouldn't be used against the US or any of its allies?

Indications on recent investigations indicate Saddam was stealing from the UN Oil for Food program for self interest and for eventual weapon programs such as looking into gaining missle technology from N. Korea. Does that sound like someone with no plans for agressive intentions?

Bush was just continuing actions based on previous administration.

Not to mention the 17 UN resolutions against Iraq prior. If no one does anything about it...then he would have just continue to work the system in his favor.

To quote from Spider man or Superman or one of those comics..."With great power, comes great responsibility" The rest of the world has that responsibility too. If no one follows up on it...then why even make the UN resolutions or even have the UN.

Here's some more interesting quotes:

"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

"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.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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, Feb 18, 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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and 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.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"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.

"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

I really don't see where he mentioned media, but...

No media should be "trusted" to the extent that anything you hear you believe. It would be nice if all the news agencies had that sort of integrity, but enough don't--liberal and conservative--that we have to be wary.

However, the cries of foul about media coverage isn't because it "reports something that they dislike," it is because they twist things from what they were into what they want to report. A prime example just turned up regarding the RNC Chairman and the Drudge Report when they attempted to slander Wes Clark and kill his political run by taking his quotes out of context so badly they changed the entire meaning. In fact, they were taken so out of context that between the sets of ellipses in the quotes was 11,500 words. Feel free to read the article yourself. Or if you're untrusting of that article, you can read the transcript yourself. Ordinarily I'd be pissed at the Drudge Report and little more, but the big problem is that other news agencies, in this case The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, reported what Druge said as fact. Oopsie?

You're right that some people will cry "conservative!" when they do things like that. In a reverse situation others might shout "liberal!" But the bottom line is there are a distortion or deliberate twisting of the facts involved. That shouldn't be tolerated. If they report something PROPERLY, it should be embraced, regardless of whether or not one agrees.

"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.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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, Feb 18, 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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and 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.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"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.

"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."

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

You people have got to WAKE UP!

We're drowning in evidence. Iraq is building a reactor. For what? Why do you suppose the most oil-abundant nation in the world has been feverishly investing billions of dollars in nuclear reactors? (And Iraq's GDP in 2000 was just $6.6B.) Concerns about fossil fuel emissions? This is the madman who set oil wells on fire at the end of the Gulf War which burned for many months (years?) spewing black smoke into the atmosphere.

See the first item on this page, Iraq: Failing To Disarm
Videos, audio, pictures, slide shows, and transcripts. Featured are Secretary of State Colin Powell's 76-minute presentation to the U.N. and a "60 Minutes" interview. The first hour of Powell's presentation is about Saddam's WMD and his systematic means of deception to make fools of U.N. weapons inspectors. The last 16 minutes are devoted to Iraqi terrorist connections, which is the main kind of evidence for which you are asking.

Saddam Hussein is not a religious fanatic.

You're right. He's not a religious fanatic. Power hungry madman is more appropriate. That's the only way that I can describe someone who has used weapons of mass destruction against his political opposition.