• Likely true, Kyle. Good night, Sir.

    February 27, 2011 at 1:06 a.m.

  • When you start to comment on how Mike conducts his blog and simultaneously state "As if I cared what you think", it's really time to go to bed, bighorn.

    February 27, 2011 at 1:04 a.m.

  • When you start answering you own responses, it's time to go to bed, Mike.

    And out of respect for myself, Mike, I haven't posted anything to any of your overtly slanted blogs in quite sometime.

    For the record, I don't think the US had any business invading Iraq for the obscene length of time we've been there. The attempt to build a democracy there is at an extreme cost. But, we have to acknowledge some growth of freedom in Egypt, Tansani, Lybia, et al. as Bush's legacy of building to Democracy in that region. What will the outcome be? That's yet to be determined, but I'm certain anything short of of a communist totalitarian state will not be statisfactory to you.

    As if I cared what you think.

    As for your insults regarding my comments on these on, Sir....

    Your blogs are what? Self serving biased diatribes aimed at promoting your own non productive citizen agenda in favor of more for you and your kind, and less for the working tax payer?

    Honestly, I respect that you have the time to scan countless sources to come up with blogs. Sorry that some of us are too busy working for a living to come up with the appropriate "cut and paste" response to suit you.

    And thanks of acknowledging the handful of posts I placed on the VicAd's boards. They have been few, but I'm glad you're paying attention.

    February 27, 2011 at 12:44 a.m.

  • That's gripe

    February 27, 2011 at 12:02 a.m.

  • Bighorn
    As I told you many you really think I care what you think?
    Do as you always do..grip about everything posted or written in the Advocate.

    February 27, 2011 at midnight

  • Mike: I've counted 4 times you've responded to yourself on your own blog. Have you lost your "wrote-off" mind, and beginning to aurgue with yourself?

    February 26, 2011 at 11:12 p.m.

  • I disagreed with President Obama's decision to send in an additional 30,000
    Troops to Afghanistan...I doubt Obama is going to say the GOP is also responsible... He is commander in chief....his call
    But for those that don't admit mistakes,I can understand not wanting to hear about Iraq or wanting to  try to bring in others to share blame.

    That's more responses to your posts because you really don't know what you are talking about.

    February 26, 2011 at 9:42 p.m.

  • Hictoria already went through your excuse. They did it too..I already resource to,

    Reeder this is what I actually posted
    "Now he wanted Iran to think that but as 2 different WMD inspectors reported prior to the invasion...nada

    Point is we didn't invade because of boasts to Iran...truth is we didn't know of his capability as we don't really know about Iran...we didn't have Arabic contacts or arabic speaking CIA contacts before the invasion..?

    February 26, 2011 at 9:31 p.m.

  • Listen to this Utube clip with your own party leaders saying he had WMD.

    February 26, 2011 at 9:21 p.m.

  • Reeder you are a right -winger I don't expect anything less from you but. With combat operations in Iraq coming to an end, most Americans believe the war is going well for the United States, a new CBS News survey finds. But nearly six in ten say it was a mistake to start the battle in the first place, and most say their country did not accomplish its objectives in Iraq.

    Fifty-seven percent now say the war is going well for America, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents. That reflects improved perceptions since July 2007, when just 22 percent said things were going well. Thirty-eight percent say things are going badly.

    Thirty-five percent predict more violence in Iraq because of the troop withdrawal, while 60 percent say the violence will lessen or stay where it is now.

    Asked who should get credit for how things are going in Iraq, one in three say both the Obama and Bush administrations. Twenty-six percent credit the Bush administration, 20 percent credit the Obama administration, and 19 percent say neither deserves credit.

    Fifty-two percent approve of how President Obama is handing the situation in Iraq.

    Americans are split on how the Iraqi people are feeling toward the United States at this point. Forty-one percent say most are feeling grateful, while 37 percent say they are feeling resentful.

    The percentage of Americans who say America did the right thing in going to war in Iraq now stands at 37 percent. Fifty-nine percent say the war was a mistake, up from 55 percent in March of last year. While most Democrats and independents say the United States should not have gone to war, 63 percent of Republicans say it was the right thing to do.

    February 26, 2011 at 9:19 p.m.

  • Let's see: you said he didn't say he had WMD, but the article you quoted said he did. You can't have it both ways, much as you liberals would like it to be that way. The facts of the matter are that Saddam Hussein believed he could win a war with the US. I don't really believe his generals thought so after the little incident in Kuwait. As far as MY backyard, the only thing it has in it are leaves. Why can't you get past the Bush years? They're gone. Unfortunately, this president is worse, but that's a story for another blog.

    February 26, 2011 at 9:07 p.m.

  • Oct 05,2010 Reeder said
    "I just don't know WHY the Democrats aren't running on their accomplishments. It couldn't be because Obamacare isn't as popular as the Sociocrats thought, could it? What about all that stimulus spending that really brought down the unemployment like they claimed? This election is just like '92 when your buddy, James Carville, said it's the economy, stupid. Yep, people will vote their pocketbooks and the sociocrats will be left sitting on their .. well, you've got a picture of it sitting right in front of your name.

    I rest my case

    February 26, 2011 at 9:03 p.m.

  • Reeder
    As I have told you after many attacks...Your comment history tells a story about your bias....Clean up your own back yard before lecturing others.

    February 26, 2011 at 8:56 p.m.

  • "The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors," Piro wrote. "Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq."

    Hussein noted that Iran's weapons capabilities had increased dramatically while Iraq's weapons "had been eliminated by the UN sanctions," and that eventually Iraq would have to reconstitute its weapons to deal with that threat if it could not reach a security agreement with the United States.

    Piro raised bin Laden in his last conversation with Hussein, on June 28, 2004, but the information he yielded conflicted with the Bush administration's many efforts to link Iraq with the terrorist group. Hussein replied that throughout history there had been conflicts between believers of Islam and political leaders. He said that "he was a believer in God but was not a zealot . . . that religion and government should not mix." Hussein said that he had never met bin Laden and that the two of them "did not have the same belief or vision."

    From your article from an FBI interview after the invasion while Saddam was in prison.....that was one version that proves he had nothing,his general & a scientist told the CIA Iraq had no WMd besides read my post where I said Saddam wanted Iran to think he had WMD.

    February 26, 2011 at 8:53 p.m.

  • Mike,
    You asked for it: now you have it. Here's an article you might want to read. BTW, I'm not an apologist:: I haven't done anything wrong. In my opinion, neither did George Bush in invading Iraq. Here's an article which backs up what I said.

    If anyone who has been reading your prior posts really believes this post was just about Rumsfield, well they are really naive. You are a hard line anti-war Democrat who just can't get past the Bush years. Get over it!

    February 26, 2011 at 8:28 p.m.

  • Legion357
    Thanks for understanding.
    You brought up some good points and  we might have a friendly debate someday at another time and know where to find me....:-)

    February 26, 2011 at 5:57 p.m.

  • I don't remember who the interviewer was, either George Stephanopoulos or Diane Sawyer, but they had Rumsfeld on the hook too.

    February 26, 2011 at 5:57 p.m.

  • Ok, well then yeah, Andrea Mitchell did a good job with the interview.

    February 26, 2011 at 5:50 p.m.

  • Again this blog was about the interview.

    We have two senate intelligence com. Reports,so we pretty much what transpired and President Bush conceded he was disappointed about no wmd and Rummy admits we would have never invaded if we knew about the lack of WMD....If anyone wants to rehash the reasons,I still 5 Iraq specials Frontline,60 Minutes,CNN etc.

    February 26, 2011 at 5:40 p.m.

  • Oops, the h went missing...

    February 26, 2011 at 5:31 p.m.

  • The whole history of Iraq and America is strange.
    We supported Iraq in the Iraq Iran war, and even overlooked the gassing of the Kurds, which by the way proved that Iraq had nerve gas and mustard gas.


    After Iraq invaded Kuwait, smelling a opportunity, Syria even sent troops to help in the gulf war, after all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Both Iran and Syria loved the idea of Hussein being deposed.

    True the IAEA did tons of inspection after the Gulf War, Iraq did in fact have a enrichment program to develop nuclear weapons.

    Could the dismantling of the Iraq nuclear program provided the means for Iran to take up the program?

    Who knows, IMO, some Iraq engineers of the minority religion, just might have took themselves and their knowledge to Iran.

    February 26, 2011 at 5:28 p.m.

  • Mike. A few things. I hope you do not think that I think you are stupid. I do not.

    I just thought you may agree that there is some things that are positive about the other side. If someone writes 100% negative things concerning one political party, then don't you think that is just sour grapes. Do you agree with everything Keith Obermann or Chris Matthews has to say about Republican politicians. I don't. Just like I would never agree with everything Russ, Sean, or the mormon dude says about Democratic politicians. To me that is really inconceivable. Kind of reminds me of parents that say their kids always do what is right and the neighbor kids never do what is right.

    Finally. I really don't think I would care to write a blog, as I don't feel I have the skills. But if I ever did I hope I would make it more of a positive experience. I really admire the blogs written by Jared. He impresses me with his range of subjects and the graceousness and humility that he demonstrates.

    February 26, 2011 at 4:47 p.m.

  • Lol....uninformed right-wingers can dish it out but they can't take it.
    I bet you can't produce a link to prove Saddam Hussein broadcasted the fact he had WMD....Now he wanted Iran to think that but as 2 different WMD inspectors reported prior to the invasion...nada

    Instead of being good little apologist you should actually read the blog. You might find out that it was about Donald Rumsfeld's interview with Andrea Mitchell.

    Did I miss the memo?I didn't know about the local right-wingers restrictions.

    We have future problems to work As if this blog matters.

    February 26, 2011 at 4:29 p.m.

  • Thank you, reeder, for hitting the nail right on the head.

    February 26, 2011 at 3:58 p.m.

  • Mike,
    You have ignored the fact that Saddam Hussein was publicly broadcasting his possession of WMD's. As to the bad intel, well, that happens to everyone from time to time. It is apparent that you have a bone to pick with the Bush administration and just can't let it go. Why don't you look to the future? We have a lot of problems to fix now.

    February 26, 2011 at 3:26 p.m.

  • Beakus

    You obviously wanted to pick a fight but since I didn't respond accordingly; you became hell bent on making me look stupid, wrong, inconsiderate, mean, and one who would not let someone have their thoughts on the subject without following up with the truth, my thoughts of course.

    I could never be bold enough to suggest what someone should write about but I will follow up with a question...Why don't you write a blog that can be discussed by either side of political arena for the good of the USA?

    I'm satisfied with this little bitty corner I have; my avatar is not that hard to miss or ignore.

    If you have objections with my blogs; I suggest you take it up with the Victoria advocate,they might agree with you.

    February 26, 2011 at 12:51 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 26, 2011 at 12:19 p.m.

  • That's what I figured.

    With all this energy and desire to get your thoughts to the public, have you ever considered trying to be a little more diverse. I would hope you would have thoughts about other subject matter in the news. Surely you have some thoughts about things like the recent young wanttabe terrorist they arrested in our home state. Where your subject matter would possibly be something that would not shoot darts at the GOP or related folks, but be some constructive ideas on how this scary situation should be addressed by our government, states, and local officials. You know, something that could be read and discussed by either side of the political areana for the good of the USA.

    Yeah I know, to each it's own.

    February 26, 2011 at 12:03 p.m.

  • "To each its own"

    February 26, 2011 at 11:46 a.m.

  • Mike. Why wouldn't you use all your anger, rhetoric, and desire to get your point across to a larger media like radio or TV like the big boys. It is evident that your life revolves around political debating, as seen in these countless blogs.

    I just see you as another Chris, Rush, Sean, Keith, etc.., who is hell bent on making the other side look stupid, wrong, inconsiderate, mean, and would not let someone have their thoughts on the subject without following up with the truth, your thoughts of course.

    I'm serious. I know there is room for you at the top. You have more than enough spirit, knowledge, desire, and the put bull mentality.

    February 26, 2011 at 11:42 a.m.

  • waywardwind

    I know it would be reaching to expect someone to read my blog and make comments on such. I didn't have to wait too long before I received the same ol' post of what some democrats said about Iraq in 1996 or on the senate floor in 2000.

    Remember the scene in an old western like" Gunsmoke" where a snake oil salesman would try sell his medicine that would cure all? The next scene showed a frontier woman wearing a head bonnet, long dress and a shawl covering her small children ,so they wouldn't see or hear the nonsense. That's what I want journalist to do when the people who sold the Iraq war, go to peddle their books. I never meant the blog to be a tit- for- tat.

    I thought Andrea Mitchell did an excellent job not letting Donald Rumsfeld obfuscate as he usually does. She pinned him down with the facts making him sound ridiculous. i.e. Rumsfeld said he did not know Tyler Drumheller..... Donald Rumsfeld was the secretary of defense and he wants us to believe he didn't know who the chief CIA officer of European operations was? Another example, everyone should know about the tiff he had with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. There is documented proof that he withheld information from Powell & Rice but now he is trying to deny that.

    It is my belief that the power of the press is the 4th branch of government in our political system, and they should act accordingly. Now that's what this blog is about.... If we can't make them account for their mistakes in our justice system ; we don't have to let them capitalize on it without answering some serious questions on the talk shows.

    February 26, 2011 at 10:58 a.m.

  • Mike..."I've come to the conclusion that even though all the facts are in, no one will be held accountable and when that happens, we're likely to repeat the same mistakes."

    This isn't the first time the US has been duped into going to war. We are roughly the same age. I'm sure you remember the incident in the Tonkin Gulf in 1964. It directly led then-President Johnson to go to Congress and tell his tale of how the North Vietnamese navy attacked a couple of US Destroyers, the Maddox and Turner Joy. LBJ made it sound like another Pearl Harbor and Congress came back with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that allowed Johnson to send massive numbers of troops along with huge amounts of air power and naval air power to Vietnam. Back then, it wasn't about weapons of mass destruction; it was about the "domino theory" which said that if South Vietnam fell to the comunists, Laos would be next, then Cambodia and Thailand and on and on until the fighting would be in Kansas. THAT war cost the US almost 60,000 dead. We can at least take solice that even though politicians haven't changed much in a half-century, our ability to wage war has made the fight safer for our troops. The latest figures I've seen (updated today) for American deaths in Iraq is 4439, of which 3503 are combat deaths. These numbers don't include the wounded and maimed. It's still an awful total but much better than what we suffered in Vietnam. Of course, that doesn't mean much to the families. We need presidents who aren't so ready to spill the blood of our young to prove THEIR manhood.

    February 25, 2011 at 8:02 p.m.

  • It's a long, difficult way from yellow cake to weapons grade uranium, just ask the Iranians.

    February 25, 2011 at 6:35 p.m.

  • Or maybe it was this story.

    The AP article, published on July 5, said that a large amount of yellowcake uranium was, in fact, sold by Iraq to Canada, as part of a secret mission facilitated by the U.S. But this uranium was known to have been in Iraq following the conclusion of the first Gulf War. It was not "found" in 2003, as the IBD editorial claims. As the AP article said, "There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, [a senior U.S. official] said."

    July 5 marked the completion of the operation in which the United States removed 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Tuwaitha, the facility that once served as the center of Iraq’s nuclear activities.The uranium was then shipped to Canada. Cameco Corp., a Canadian uranium producer, bought the material and plans to enrich it, before selling it to nuclear plants worldwide. According to Cameco’s Web site, yellowcake uranium, or uranium oxide, is uranium that has been milled and mined but requires further processing before it can be used as a fuel.

    The transfer of the uranium involved stops in Baghdad and Diego Garcia, a U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean, as well as 37 military flights, before it finally arrived in Montreal. Securing and transporting the uranium cost the U.S. military nearly $70 million, which Iraq has pledged to partially reimburse. While the exact price Cameco paid for the uranium is unknown, a senior U.S. official told the AP that the deal was worth “tens of millions of dollars.”

    The details of the transaction have been kept secret. By the time the AP reported the incident, the mission had already been underway for months. In a July 7 press conference, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that the secrecy was due to “security concerns.” U.S. officials worried the uranium might end up in the wrong hands if kept in an unstable region like the Middle East.

    February 25, 2011 at 3:38 p.m.

  • That was debunked years ago,remember the Libby trial?

    Thus far, Yellowcakegate has fingered two Phantom Bigfeet in the White House. The first PB was the National Security Council's nonproliferation expert, Robert Joseph. Alan Foley, the CIA's liaison on the State of the Union, told the Senate Intelligence Committee last week that he'd complained to Joseph about the yellowcake reference—which at that point was something like, "We know that Saddam Hussein has recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"—in a draft of the speech. This prompted Joseph to suggest attributing the allegation to British intelligence. Foley replied that this was unsatisfactory because the CIA didn't think British intelligence's information was correct. The White House disputes this version of the conversation. Communications Director Dan Bartlett says that the White House decided on its own to drop the "we know that" formulation and to cite a source instead, because that would make the yellowcake story "much more credible." According to Bartlett, Foley and Joseph agreed that it would be better to cite British intelligence, because the alternative was to cite a version of the yellowcake allegation in the National Intelligence Estimate that both thought was too "sensitive."

    That was just a quick link to a site that disputes it but Michael Isikoff and David Corn's book Hubris gave the best account of how that story was fabricated...For one thing the CIA brought the #1 Iraqi weapons scientist to their headquarters where he told them Saddam DID NOT have WMD or the capability to produce any.

    We even had a couple weapons inspectors say he didn't have but some will always believe he did...In fact Rummy admitted the did not have WMD and so did Bush.

    February 25, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.

  • Please explain to us what the Iraqis planned to do with over 200 tons of yellowcake uranium. You remember, don't you, the uranium cache that was discovered and secretly moved out of Iraq after the war? The existence of which was only disclosed after it was safely out of the country, to keep it out of the wrong hands? An event that was ignored by your beloved New York Times and Washington Post? If that was not destined to become WMD's, please enlighten us as to what, exactly, Saddam Hussein intended to do with it.

    February 25, 2011 at 3:16 p.m.

  • Hictoria

    You know there's differences between the short term deficit and long terms deficit and the debt. I don't believe anyone(that knows economics') will blame the Obama Administration for spending money to keep us from going into a full blown depression. Deficits are not permanent, they can be lowered with growth, spending cuts, and taxes.... If that is your only measurement then you will forever think Obama is the worst(all about money).... That is your prerogative.

    Anyway, the object of the blog wasn't to rehash the mistakes of the Iraq war, Bush vs. Obama,or a "they did it too" excuse,although I knew someone will post the same cut & pastes to prove that it was a bipartisan choice.It happens every time.

    I've come to the conclusion that even though all the facts are in, no one will be held accountable and when that happens, we're likely to repeat the same mistakes.

    I salute Andrea Mitchell for asking the tough questions and I hope more journalists take her lead. Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush can write all the books and cash in on speeches giving their version in closed venues but they are rubbing( the ones that know the facts) our noses in the dirt by denying what people already know.

    February 25, 2011 at 3:04 p.m.

  • Who has added more to the deficit? Bush or Obama? Let us not forget Bush had 8 years....

    February 25, 2011 at 2:43 p.m.

  • Lol...President Bush left a failed economy and two failed wars and he's better than Obama?

    The same historians placed President Obama 15Th all time and he currently has a 49-51% approval and several prominent republicans say this president will be hard to beat. George W. Bush left with a 32% approval.....

    It is my opinion that if Hillary Clinton would have admitted her vote was wrong; she might have been elected president of United States.... People didn't buy that " duped" response.

    I know that republicans and democratic legislators were afraid to vote NO, for fear they would be labeled " unpatriotic" but I have to admire the handful of senators who took the trouble to look at the contradicting evidence and voted their conscience.

    February 25, 2011 at 2:18 p.m.

  • I know he was not the best Mike, but compared to what we have now, he looks like a genius. As far as Clinton being duped...makes me wonder if someone that impressionable should even be in office.

    February 25, 2011 at 2:09 p.m.

  • Hictoria
    anti-war/anti-Bush ?...I am anti-Iraq war and I'm not alone in saying that President George W Bush was one of the worst presidents ever; that was confirmed by a group of historians recently.

    February 25, 2011 at 2:05 p.m.

  • It's not a level playing field as you suggest because the commander in chief and his administration makes the final call based on their information and intelligence; not the opposition party. There is no moral equivalent.....Besides John Edwards, John Kerry and other prominent democrats apologized for the worst decision they ever made and Hillary Clinton said she was duped into trusting the administration. 26 democratic senators voted for the resolution to go to war and in the house 82 voted yes and 126 democrats voted NO.

    With all the evidence out there I think Chuck Hagel was the only republican to admit it was wrong in the legislative branch.

    February 25, 2011 at 2:02 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 25, 2011 at 1:53 p.m.

  • I know Mike, I agree with you. I was just making sure it was a level playing field. It was not just the Bush administration who believed there were WMD in Iraq. I personally think Rumsfeld is wrong for doing it as well....

    February 25, 2011 at 1:52 p.m.

  • Hictoria
    That's a prime example of what I'm talking about.... That list you just put out has been posted about 10 times to justify the error....

    The blog I wrote was about Donald Rumsfeld (after the fact) selling books supporting his propaganda instead of owning up to the facts that have come out.

    February 25, 2011 at 1:49 p.m.

  • There are more here:

    February 25, 2011 at 1:48 p.m.

  • "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

    "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    "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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. 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." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    February 25, 2011 at 1:47 p.m.

  • Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

    "[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

    "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    February 25, 2011 at 1:44 p.m.