Quotes on Iraq from 2002, 2003 and 2004. You be the judge.
Posted : August 27, 2004 at 2:19 pm [America/Los_Angeles]
[via Daily Kos]
“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
- White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
- President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because
we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a
threat now.”
- President Bush, 7/2/03
“Absolutely.”
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
- President Bush 4/24/03
“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
- President Bush, 3/19/03
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
- President Bush, 3/16/03
“This is about imminent threat.”
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”
- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
“Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different
methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
“Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have
weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass
destruction…That’s why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”
- President Bush, 1/3/03
“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.”
- President Bush, 11/23/02
“I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
“Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.”
- President Bush, 11/3/02
“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”
- President Bush, 11/1/02
“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
- President Bush, 10/28/02
“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”
- President Bush, 10/16/02
“There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
- President Bush, 10/7/02
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
- President Bush, 10/2/02
“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
- President Bush, 10/2/02
“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
- President Bush, 9/26/02
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
“Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.”
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
After all this on the record and many that I know were equally dire but I can’t find them, the administration apparently did try to make us believe that they never said it was “imminent”. Case in point:
“I think some in the media have chosen to use the word ‘imminent.’ Those were not words we used.”
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 1/27/04
I think this will have to be my last word for this week as I look forward to a relaxing weekend. Oh, and before I forget, I DO NOT plan on watching any of the Sunday Morning shows. They rarely tell me anything worthwhile and intelligent and I don’t have time to listen to their “stories”. For that my brother recommends reading a Robert Ludlum’s novel. 
- Anand
Category: United (or not) State of American Politics 2004
4 Comments
Interesting how you left out
Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of
Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.”
Posted by: Anonymous at August 27, 2004 @ 9:48 pm
My anonymous friend:
My entry did not make it clear, but the idea of the entry was to show that President Bush’s administration invaded Iraq only on the grounds that Saddam and his WMD posed an imminent and dangerous threat to the United States. It was NEVER about invading Iraq to liberate the Iraqis.
What Kerry said essentially emphasizes my point even more.
While we’re talking about Kerry, allow me to use his very own words said on the Senate floor during the vote on Iraq War Resolution in Oct. 2002 to explain my point:
Regime change has been an American policy under the
Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the
policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient
justification for going to war–particularly unilaterally–unless
regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass
destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.
As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of
war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction is a different matter.
Bottomline, our mission in Iraq failed the day we failed to find any WMD or reasons that showed Saddam was an imminent threat. From my vantage point, it would be in our best interests to quickly prop up the foundations of a democratic society in Iraq and bring our soldiers home as soon as possible before more are sacrificed at the altar of a mismanaged and (as we found out later) a misguided war!
Unfortunately, President Bush has burned the bridges with our major NATO allies so badly that we can’t even pass the baton to a UN-led army to take over and assist in Iraq’s nation building activity, kinda like in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Anand Sharma at August 28, 2004 @ 1:30 am
Anand,
It is very interesting how your blog slowly transition from being a technical blog into a political one. I have enjoyed your technical opinions and now am enjoying your polical opinions as well. I truly respect your thoughts, even though I disagree with several of them. I apologize for not putting my information. Hopefully, this won’t hindered the way you view my opinion.
You may be right that Saddam might not had been a threat w/out his weapons of mass destruction. However, he was the dictator whom was harboring terrorists. President Bush made it clear in the days following Sept.11 that any such country would have to pay the consequences. Another point, it has been proven that he was in the direction into acquiring WMDs. What President Bush did was to preempt a war for the sake of the security of the US to avoid these weapons to get into an enemy’s hands.
Not to dwelve too much into history, but In WWII, Neville Chamberlain had the opportunity to stop Hitler before he gained so much power and preempting a war at that time, might’ve avoided WWII. Perhaps, as this preemptive strike might’ve avoided WWIII.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 30, 2004 @ 12:04 am
No worries. I like the name anonymous..;-)
Well, as you might have noticed, I just don’t think much of this notion of “pre-emptive” war. If anything, I actually believe that it takes more courage and greatness to pre-emptively “avoid” wars than to pre-emptively start wars hoping that by killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians today, you would have saved tens of millions tomorrow. Granted it’s a tempting theory, but I for one don’t buy that. Not because I choose to ignore what history teaches us. But because I firmly believe that “violence begets violence”.
While we’re on the subject of history, imagine what would President George W. Bush and his cohorts do if they were at the helm during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
See here’s the deal my friend: Diplomacy might not sound as “Rambo”-ish as I would like it to, but trust me, for every one war that you cite which has saved lives, I can cite plenty of cases where “diplomacy” and “other pressures” have helped achieve the same (if not better) results. And at NO (or negligible) cost of human life!
The way I see it, Saddam in 2002 was no more an imminent threat (or a dangerous lunatic or a barbaric dictator) to United States than Kim Jong Il was (and is) today. Infact, North Korea is even more dangerous in the sense that they’ve a history of selling their nuclear technology and secrets to rogue nations. Now that’s the kinda guy I would want to to nail if I wanted to stop WWIII. Does that mean I favor a “pre-emptive” war against N. Korea? Nope. As you can tell by now, I for one actually like the idea of using “diplomacy” with N. Korea or for that matter with any number of rogue nations. And President Bush agrees too. So the question is “Why could we not have done the same with Iraq?” It might sound like a line from an anti-war stump speech, but I really, really believe that this administration did not exhaust every and all means before invading Iraq.
As for turning this into a political blog, well I sure hope I get back to writing about technical stuff. I know I will. However, at this time in my life, “this” election seems to be more important than just about anything else. I know it sounds crazy, but it’s actually true. And if my frequent ramblings and sometimes opinionated entries help a fellow “earthling” sort things out, so be it. I am not complaining..;-)
Thanks for taking the time to write. Means a bunch. And don’t worry. I am getting pretty good at “agreeing to disagree” with fellow netizens. As you can imagine, I attract a few from time to time..;-)
- Anand
Posted by: Anand Sharma at August 30, 2004 @ 1:06 am