Even after Bill Clinton warned the Bush admin that ....?

Question

Osama and Al Quida were the biggest threats to American national security, Bush continued to think Saddam was.
9/11 occured, caused by Al Quida and most likely funded by Osama, and Bush still thinks that Saddam is the biggest threat.
What more has to happen to make Bush and his supporters see that Al Quida is the biggest threat, and go after the root of the entire problem? Or is Bush just taking the scenic route, through Iraq?

Joe Richtofen, how about some credible evidence??
but just to be fair, I'll give you a heads up and point out that you need to delete the parts where Republican majority block his every attempt, while the same people Bashing Clinton today for doing nothing kept touting muslim propoganda about his missle attack attempt on Osama destroyed an aspirain factory.

BRYAN, I think you better check your facts. at that time, Sudan wouldn't have handed Osama over to the united states. Better quit believing all the right-wing gossip.

WRONG BRYAN
Sudan was a safe haven for Osama clear up to mid 1996 when he was expelled from the country, not captured and offered to the United States.
So your "facts" are revisionist history. nice try though.

Bryan, maybe you would like to read the 3rd paragraph here under ORIGINS
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

Bryan, is this the email rumor, that you get your "facts" from?
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blnorth.htm?terms=oliver+north

this is for you nicolasraage>>>

Yes. Bin Laden lived in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, from about 1991 until 1996, when he was expelled under pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia. While under protection from the Sudanese government (which claims that bin Laden became a terrorist only after he left Sudan), bin Laden set up camps to train al-Qaeda members and opened multimillion-dollar businesses that funded and provided cover for al-Qaeda activities. Before expelling bin Laden in 1996, Sudan offered to arrest him and extradite him to Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis, who stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in 1994, feared having him back in the country, even as a prisoner, so he went to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9367/

Wilkow Conservative, was this question that hard for you to understand??

Answer 1

Bush knew he had the "masses" euphoric attention...he acted just like Hitler, but didn't know the people would keep in check bu electing a democratic senate and house!

Answer 2

Bill Clinton warned Bush?
Check your facts.
Oliver North warned Al Gore in the 1980s.
Look it up.
Al Gore laughed at him. He could not even pronounce Osama Bin Laden's name.
In 1993, the WTC was attacked. Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to Clinton.
Guess what he said?
Well, isn't it obvious what he said?
Then the USS Cole was attacked.
Guess what he did?
Oh, wait, that's right, that's obvious too.
So Bush takes over a nation that is perceived as weak and ripe for the KICKING and you think it's HIS fault?
Clinton DID warn him, and you can look THIS up,too, that Saddam had ignored the UN's resolutions and was still trying to build Nuclear Weapons.
He cautioned him that he had a suspected stockpile of chemical and biological warfare weapons.
He had set into motion a policy that Saddam needed to be removed from power there.
Clinton, NOT Bush.
These are all matters of fact... not revisionist history.

Answer 3

You are an absolute liar, and I can prove it, but I wont get the chance, because you will be too cowardly to attempt to prove your accusations.

If Clinton thought Osama was a threat, he would have taken him when Sudan offered him.

Answer 4

You are mischaracterizing this.

Yes, al-Quaeda attacked us on 9/11 because we didn't go after them sufficiently on prior attacks. This goes back to Clinton, and before.

However after 9/11, Afghanistan would not give Osama and al-Quaeda up. So we went in after them and booted the Taliban out while we were at it. Because of this, Bush Doctrine was formulated. Essential the Doctrine was If you support terrorism, we're coming after you and the US is not going to wait to be hit again.

Now we have Saddam, who we know had WMDs at one time, because he gassed thousands in his own country and during the Iraq/Iran war. Our intelligence, and other countries intelligence, tells us he still has WMDs and is developing nukes. In accordance with Bush Doctrine, Bush says we aren't going to wait for Saddam to sell or give the WMDs to terrorists, and we aren't going to wait to be attacked again. Thus we invade Iraq.

Now with 20/20 hindsight, we know Iraq had very few WMDs, mostly a few old artillery shells filled with gas. No nuke program to speak of. However, now we are in there, and al-Quaeda has brought the battle to us in Iraq. Right now, the battle in Iraq IS the battle against Islamic terrorism.

That's how we got there, and that's why we are there now. Yes, al-Quaeda is the enemy and the enemy is in Iraq.

Answer 5

"...at that time, Sudan wouldn't have handed Osama over to the united states."?!?

Time to bone up on your ancient mid-90s history, Binky!

Answer 6

CLINTON TOLD CONGRESS, CONGRESS SAID HE IS NO THREAT. BUSH AT LEAST BUCKED THE SYSTEM LEGALLY. WHO YA THINK WAS SUPPORTING AL QUEDA, THE RICH MAN IN IRAQ, THAT COUNTRY WAS GETTING MILLIONS FROM US AFTER DESERT STORM TO HELP THE POOR,
WHO WAS GETTING THE MONEY, SADDAM WAS AND SPENDING IT QUITE INTERESTINGLY.

Answer 7

If Bubba was so worried about Osama why did he let him go 3 times when he had the chance?

Answer 8

Bush knows better don't let the lies fool you. He knew that Saddam WAS NOT a threat. He attacked that country on pretext and American youth is paying the price for Saddam's oil.

Answer 9

who got the following memo and what did he do about it?

"bin laden determined to strike in US"

Answer 10

the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee’s report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to “meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives.”

I guess Bush was to some effect after Al Qaeda along with Saddam and the WMD's that are hidden in Syria, oh wait I forgot All your liberal heros as well as the rest of the world lied and there never were any WMD's.

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

President Bill Clinton > February 4, 1998“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."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998 "The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"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."

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger > February 18, 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"

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > February 23, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Bill Richardson (D-NM) > May 29, 1998 "The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats > October 9th, 1998"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US 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."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998 "[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Nancy Pelosi - House Minority Leader > December 16, 1998Saddam 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 processes."

President Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998 "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) > September 30, 1999 "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Letter to President Bush signed by Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN), Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and others > December 6, 2001"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."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002 Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > February 24, 2002"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."Joe Biden > August 4, 2002"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002 "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
> August 4, 2002 "I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain." > August 4, 2002 "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." > August 4, 2002 "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) > August 4, 2002 "I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > August 25, 2002 "[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002 "I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > September 14, 2002 "I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) > September 19, 2002"We begin with a 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, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."> September 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."

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002 "(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." > September 27, 2002"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) > October 3, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. 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."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > October 9, 2002"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002 "With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) > October 10, 2002"There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Senatorc Chuck Schumer (D-NY) > October 10, 2002 "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > October 10, 2002"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, 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."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > October 10, 2002"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002 "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) > October 10, 2002"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."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > January 7, 2003 "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > January 22, 2003 "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 23, 2003“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real” > January 31, 2003 "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

United Nations Inspections Reports

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN [potassium cyanide] and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl [dimethylamine hydrochloride]."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"In total, at least 300 to 350 R-400 and R-400A bombs remained unaccounted for by UNSCOM."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"A document submitted by Iraq in February 2003 outlining the production of Clostridium perfringens [gas gangrene], did not add any detail to previous Iraqi declarations. No evidence to support the declared destruction of the agent was provided."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 - 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 - 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. The mustard filled shells account for a couple of tonnes of agent while the aerial bombs account for approximately 70 tons."

In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. “In the late spring of 2002,” Pollack has written,
I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).

Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that
without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.
The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was
hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.
So, too, the Washington Post , which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that
[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.

Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it
did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.
The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding
no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.
Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless enough to use them, accused Bush of telling a different sort of lie by characterizing the risk as “imminent.” But this, too, is false: Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war. 4 Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Bush declared that he would “not wait on events while dangers gather” and that he would “not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.” Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: “If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long.” And as if that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word “imminent” itself precisely in order to repudiate it:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

What of the related charge that it was still another “lie” to suggest, as Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee’s report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to “meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives.”