Is Kucinich telling the truth about Weapons of Mass Destruction?

He seems to claim that he knew before the war that Iraq did not have any WMD's?

I don't buy that... Why... Because even some of us er knowledgeable DU'er who listened to Scott Ritter, read Will Pitt's book, and read/heard other items that claimed Iraq destroyed their weapons, were not convinced 100 percent that Suddam destroyed all. Come on..we've got to be honest about this.... I was pretty damn certain we were not in imminent danger and what Ritter said was true, but I certainly wasn't postive that Saddamn didn't have something stashed away ... Hell, from what I remember, Scott wasn't certain they were all destroyed....

I guess the question is: Were you 100 percent postive that Suddamn Hussein did not have WMD's at the beginning of the 2 years ago?

yes

I don't buy that Dennis knew for sure that there weren't any WMD's but he' blasting the other canidates who bought into it....Even Dean ...

No..I personally did not know if Saddam had WMD, but I DID know that the war was a naked power grab and that WMD, or removing Saddam from power, or terrorism, or any other flimsy excuse the BFEE came up with was total bullshit.

We should never have gone into Iraq....it was unjust, it was immoral, illegal, and Terwilleger is right, it was tantamount to mass murder.

But that's not my point... I think it's a bit disingenuous to knock others who thought that the possibility existed that (some)weapons may have existed...

more than that, I don't think Clinton or any of those others, necessarily thought there were any weapons. I think that it was a political decision to keep the Iraq issue alive, and political decisions were made on what to do about the "threat". If they thought there were weapons, then they should have gotten the UN back in there earlier for inspections. AND kept up inspection regimes.

I still don't understand how they talked to Hussein Kamal in 1995, who said there were no more weapons or weapons programs, yet US government officials "thought" there might be weapons in Iraq.

There's a serious disconnect here.

administration's "integrity".

It kinda helps that the administration led the UN Inspectors on a wild goose chase too.

And starvation in the streets--you bet there wasn't any money for such nonsense.

I have to research to see if Scott Ritter stated that there was zero WMD's in Iraq before the war...

He may have strongly suspected (as many of us did) but he didn't know.

including Hussein himself.

I also wasn't the Ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations. Kucinich was.

He said the other candidates said that there were WMDs in Iraq and Kucinich said he had seen no proof. That is not the same as saying you know for certain there is no WMDS.

but I was one of those people who listened to Ritter and watched Blix.

Nothing Powell or anyone else said convinced me that Iraq had any serious offensive capabilty. This is the Iraq that was fought to a stalemate by Iran, crushed by the US in Gulf I, and had been steadily bombed and intensely watched for 10 years.

Much of the "intelligence" we had was from Iraqis looking to cut a deal with us, and would tell us anything we wanted to hear.

Over half this board was in a panic back in March and April about whether they'd find WMD. Now they all KNOW there never was any. And they're all smarter than every world leader and the IAEA and UNSCOM and everybody else who also thought Saddam had WMD. Dennis said we needed inspectors in Iraq and you don't need inspectors in a country if you don't think there's a reason for it. There's alot of people not telling the entire truth about this war and it's not just Dick Cheney. Makes me very sad.

Maybe to buy enough tim eto help others see the truth...to stop an insane war.
I think that has as much to do with it as anything...

..to build a coalition so the US didn't go in half cocked...but obviously Bush got his way with more lies & deceits and people on this board are now coming down on the one person who had the GUTS to speak the truth the whole way through.

Really amazing....maybe we deserve what we're going to end up with if we can't see through all this spin.

Very sad....

Peace DR

No, if he really thought there was absolutely no threat from Saddam Hussein he would have just said so. And he did not want to build a coalition to go into Iraq at all. He wanted no war at all.

Like I said below. That's my problem with Dennis. You just can't say we need inspections and have no realistic plan to make it happen. I don't like dissing him, but he hasn't been totally clear on this from the beginning and I don't like him dissing others and getting away with it.

"In September of 2002, before five of my fellow candidates joined the President in claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, I repeatedly and insistently made the point that no proof of that claim existed and as such that there was no basis to go to war. Six months later, even Dr. Dean was still claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

http://kucinich.us/statements.htm#WMD

He never said he knew for sure there were no WMDS he only said he SAW NO PROOF! Jesus, read the fucking article instead of putting words in his mouth.

Why demand tight restrictions on weapons sales to Iraq?

I am sorry. It just doesn't work this way. You can't call for inspections on one hand and then take no responsiblity to do anything about it. This is exactly the reason I'm not actively supporting Kucinich.

He was right to try to get point the discussion to the actual evidence and the extent of any threat in relation to launching a war. But he's wrong to act as if there was a purely diplomatic method of getting inspectors in Iraq just like he's wrong now to act as if there's hundreds of thousands of UN peacekeepers available to go into Iraq.

I hate dissing on Dennis because I really do respect him. But sometimes he's just off-base.

Jesus, is that hard to comprehend? He hadn't seen any proof that there were WMDs when Bush et al said there were WMDS. So you call for inspections to look to see if there really are WMDs.

How do you get inspectors in?

And, if there was no evidence at all that would cause concern, why bother with inspectors in the first place?

And I'm not going to totally argue this because I don't feel like digging up quotes, but I don't think Kerry ever said Saddam actually possessed WMD either. I think he was primarily very concerned about indications of WMD and the need for inspections, but knew Saddam would never agree to a true inspections process without threat of force.

Let's not forget for several months before Bush had been talking about going to war with Iraq regardless. He even said he could do it without ANY act of Congress if he wanted.

And plus Kucinich is bringing this up because there were people saying Saddam has WMDs, and he said there had been no proof, as in nothing definitive to would allow someone to say for a fact that Iraq had WMD. That's different than saying there might be some evidence that would require you to look further into the matter. None of the others were saying, "There's some evidence that Saddam might have WMDs so we need inspectors to check it out." They were saying Saddam HAS WMD.

That's the first mistake he made. Threatening war before going through any diplomatic procedures. That's what caused Senators like Kerry to force him to the UN. With a resolution that authorized force to let the UN know we were serious.

Here's three different statements by Kerry, by the way. He never says Saddam has weapons. Disarming is a process that includes full cooperation with inspectors, full disclosure or all documents, etc., dismantling any facilites, and turning over all weapons. It doesn't mean in and of itself that a weapon exists.

Read them. He never said Saddam actually HAS these weapons. I don't recall him ever saying that specifically.

Sept 2002
"the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted."

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub5596/kerry/we_still_have_a_choice_on_iraq.php
http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub5438/kerry/remarks_on_nbcs_meet_the_press.php
http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub5459/kerry/remarks_at_georgetown_university.php

It links to Kerry's speech on the Senate floor before the Iraq vote, in it he repeatedly speaks of "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" and "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs."

He doesn't say that we need to see if Iraq has these things, he says they are there.

because he hadn't seen proof. The title and question are misleading if you read the article

It just isn't adequate to say there's enough intelligence to want inspections for WMD but criticize those who actually chose to make tough choices to do something about it. And I don't mean start a war. I mean support the real steps that it took to make the inspections happen.

"He seems to claim that he knew before the war that Iraq did not have any WMD's?"

Are you saying IWR and the "Coalition" attack were justified if Iraq DID "have any" WMDs? Any? In any form or condition? Or any components or presursors?

Has he said something about "100 percent" certitude?

What do you mean: "seems to claim"?

All I'm saying is I don't beleive he was 100 percent sure they didn't have them... That's all

??

I didn't know that.

If you're going to accuse someone of thinking something wrong then you might want to be 100 percent right in your argument.

We had at least Scott Ritter, General Clark, Colin Powell all saying the WMDs didn't exist before Bush took office. There were more, too. Yeah, I'd say he was pretty sure because all the intelligence sources he trusts had said so publicly.

of Saddams weapons and programs but he clearly states that no one could be sure that they got all of them.

...because "seems to claim" is no "100 percent right" complaint!

There's a related thread right running now that includes the following:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=189446
"In September of 2002, before five of my fellow candidates joined the President in claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, I repeatedly and insistently made the point that no proof of that claim existed and as such that there was no basis to go to war. Six months later, even Dr. Dean was still claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

Looks to me like a pretty big difference between DK's words and your interpretation. Unless you've got a more damning source.

it was to hide the fact that after years of sanctions and behind the scenes dirty US deals....I just loved all the heartwarming pictures of our dear VP with Hussein,etc.

Since when did we get the right to go into a country...bomb the f**k outta them because we "thought/felt/heard /dreamed/wanted them to have WMD?? Since when did WE get that right?? DId I miss somewhere in my past 54 years of life that the US was given this all seeing all mighty right to determine who & who doesn't get to have WMD?? This whole argument is nuts.

and when did we get the 100% connection with Iraq & Al Qaeda?? with Osama (who?) and Saddam?? How far back to we have to go to trace the lies of building an excuse to take over another country.

I may not have been 100% positive two years ago that Hussein did not have WMD...but I was 100% sure he wasn't going to turn them onto us...til we gave them a real good excuse last spring to point them our way.


Peace
DR

I agree...that's not the point of the thread.

:crazy:


Peace
DR

Is Kucinich saying that if Iraq *did* have WMD, then the war would have been justified?

That's not how I felt, and it's certainly not what I think American doctrine should be.

And if he's not saying that, why are the others' positions on WMD (as opposed to strictly on the war) significant?

Here's some stuff re Kucinich you might appreciate:

====

Dr. Hamza, I have a map of the region here. It's Iraq, and it's up on the screen. Can you tell this committee where Iraq's nuclear sites currently are located?

MR. HAMZA: Actually, that's -- Congressman, that's not the point right now. The point is --

REP. KUCINICH: So you cannot tell where the sites are?

MR. HAMZA: Nobody can actually.


http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hgrc-092402.htm


===

WHY THE U.S. SHOULD NOT GO TO WAR IN IRAQ
NEWS CONFERENCE WITH
DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH)
U.S. House of Representatives
August 20, 2002
<snip>

I am opposed to war in Iraq. There's been no credible information linking the Iraqi regime to the 9-11 attacks or to the anthrax attacks. There's been little information concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction or the capability or intent to deliver the weapons.
<s>

I'm delighted to welcome our speakers today in the interest of furthering the safety and the security of the American people and of all people by providing alternatives.
<s>

((Scott Ritter)) So, legally speaking, as long as Iraq isn't disarmed they represent a threat to the security of the United States of America. But realistically speaking, no. Iraq has been disarmed fundamentally. Their weapons programs have been eliminated. And if we got weapons inspectors back in, you can ensure that these weapons programs would not be reconstituted. Iraq has no capability today to project meaningful military power outside of its borders. Iraq poses no threat to any of its neighbors. It does not threaten its region. It does not threaten the United States. It does not threaten the world.

<s>

I just want to summarize briefly what we've talked about, that we haven't seen evidence that the talk of going to war would really be justified on the basis of what we know at the moment about Iraq, that an attempt at war would alienate our allies, it would create instability in the Middle East, that Iraq is not showing as an urgent threat to the United States, that it would damage global counterterrorism efforts, that it could provoke Iraq to use weapons, if it has them.
I'm also concerned about the necessity for the United States to focus on our responsibilities to help Israel and Palestine deal with their grave difficulties, as well as to help India and Pakistan deal with their concerns over Kashmir.


http://mahabarbara.tripod.com/themahablog/id54.html

======

REP. KUCINICH: Just with Mr. Tierney's permission. This is from the September 18, 2002, Independent from the United Kingdom, an article by Robert Fisk. You mentioned Scott Ritter. He says: "Major Scott Ritter, Iraq's nemesis turned savior, was indeed as an inspector regularly traveling to Tel Aviv to consult Israeli intelligence. Then Saddam accused the U.N. inspectors of working for the CIA, and he was right. The United States, it emerged, was using the U.N.'s Baghdad offices to bug Iraq's government communications.
And once the inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 and the U.S. and Britain launched Operation Desert Fox, it turned out that virtually every one of the bombing targets had been visited by U.N. inspectors over the previous six months. Far from being an inspector at the U.N., lads (ph), though they didn't all know it, had been acting as forward air controllers drawing up an American hit list, rather than monitoring compliance with U.N. resolutions."
I want to just read that into the record because while I'm for inspections, sometimes inspections get curiouser and curiouser.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hgrc-092402.htm

====

CONFLICT WITH IRAQ --
AN ISRAELI PERSPECTIVE
HEARING OF THE
HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE
September 12, 2002

WITNESS:
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER
<<Fascinating stuff! This is only Kucinich’s part but the other parts are as interesting>>

MR. NETANYAHU: I'm not prying into privileged dossiers. There is this thing, need to know, and I don't really need to know right now. But I think that you can be sure that when I did need to know there was a constant upgrading of these weapons, constant upgrading of these weapons, constant efforts to make them more lethal and to expand the reach of the delivery systems to deliver them.

REP. KUCINICH: I would respectfully suggest to the prime minister, notwithstanding the great affection I have for Mr. Prime Minister, that there is a need to know. If the United States is being called upon to launch preemptive action against Iraq, there is a need to know the evidence. Because I share the concern that other members have articulated here about the effects that a preemptive attack on Iraq by the United States would have not only on the people of our country who will be called upon to wage that, and innocent civilians, but also the effect that it would have on Israel.
Now, you've stated in your remarks that if the United States launched a preemptive attack on Iraq, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein, as you described the gas, would be expected to launch a counterattack on Israel.
If the United States does not launch a preemptive attack on the state of Iraq, do you see any indication that Iraq is prepared to launch an attack on Israel?

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hgrc-091202.htm

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

You are mean!

TWL

But now that its easily seen that Saddam was bluffing it makes sense. I know some who thought he never had them, and Kucinich may be one...he has more access to that kind of info than I do

as everyone should know. DK, as well as Scott Ritter and many others who should know, sez that there was enough knowledge to state that Iraq was not a threat, period. And so it has turned out.

Jimmy Carter proposed dropping the sanctions in return for permanent weapons inspections. This would have solved every Iraq related problem--the inspectors make sure that no WMD programs ever get going, the population is no longer dependent on the government for food, and eventually they overthrow the bastard (quite a bit of resentment for the unnecessary wars that Saddam dragged them into).

I agree with you completely.

However, I'm not sure if Kucinich made a statement saying there were no WMD's period before the war. But, if he did, he does have a legitimate reason to use that statement as a way to differentiate himself from the others. If the others are smart, they will respond along the lines that you posted.

DK was certainly dead on about the proof... But he was calling for inspectors before the war... What would they inspect?

He didn't know Iraq didn't have WMDs, but he knew that he couldn't say Iraq had WMDs. So what do you do? Easy, you send in inspectors to see if Iraq does or does not have WMDs, that's the only thing you can do when you don't have enough evidence one way or the other. Kucinich took the logical route as opposed to others who just assumed Iraq HAD WMDs.

The Institute for Public Accuracy has compiled the following quotes, :

Sen. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States. " http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html>, <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59538,00.html[br />

Rep. DENNIS KUCINICH: "Since 1998 no credible intelligence has been brought forward which suggests that Iraq is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. . . " http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020912-avoidwar.htm>, <http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030604WMDinqres.html[br />

Sen. JOHN KERRY: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? & According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons . . . Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents. . . " http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm> <http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html >>

Sen. JOHN EDWARDS: "We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. " http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html[br />

Gen. WESLEY CLARK: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. " When asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark responded: "Absolutely. " (on CNN, Jan. 18, 2003). On finding the alleged weapons Clark said: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this. " (on CNN, April 2, 2003) http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html>, <http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html>, <http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/02/lt.08.html[br />

Rev. AL SHARPTON: "I think that the present administration is bent on war. There has been no, in my judgment, evidence presented there has been any weapons of mass destruction. " (on NPR, Jan. 31, 2003)

Dr. HOWARD DEAN: " have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction. " http://www.wtv-zone.com/Morgaine_OFaery/HDean4pres/deantrpswar.html[br />

On Sep. 3, 2002, on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dennis Kucinich said, "I don't think there's any justification to go to war with Iraq. There's no evidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. There's no. . . there's nothing that says that they have the ability to deliver such weapons, if they did have them. There's been no stated intention on their part to harm the United States. "

On Sep. 4, 2002, on Buchanan and Press, Buchanan asked "Congressman Kucinich, does not the President have a clear, factual point here? Saddam Hussein is developing these weapons of mass destruction, he agreed to get rid of them, he has not gotten rid of them. Kucinich replied: "Well, frankly we haven't seen evidence or proof of that, and furthermore we haven't seen evidence or proof that he has the ability to deliver such weapons if he has them, and finally, whether or not he has the intent. I think that what we need to be doing is to review this passion for war, that drumbeat for war, that's coming out of the White House, and to slow down and to let calmer heads prevail and to pursue diplomacy…. "

On Sep. 7, 2002, Dennis Kucinich gave a speech in Baraboo, Wisconsin, called "Architects of New Worlds," in which he said "There's no evidence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or the ability to deliver such weapons if it had them or the intention to do so. There is no reason for war against Iraq. Stop the drumbeat. Stop the war talk. Pull back from the abyss of unilateral action and preemptive strikes. " See: http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/sp-020907-newworlds.htm

in Iraq. And I didn't trust the administration to be entirely honest.

Of course I still worried that Saddam might have something and use it if attacked. It wouldn't have had to be an ongoing program for him to have a liter flask of anthrax spores, a stoppered test tube of ricin, a canister of nerve gas, maybe even a teeny little nuclear device, and use it, or them, on our troops and/or on our ally, Israel.

And if you believed the Bush administration's claims, you'd have had to believe Saddam could attack American cities. That should have also led to the "Why wouldn't he use them, if attacked?" dilemma being considered much more.

I think what Kucinich knew for sure was that this administration is not to be trusted without good reason. And he'd seen no proof that they were truthful about Saddam and Iraq.

thanks for answering my question..

Tru

The question is, "When Iraq is surrounded by the mightiest military force on the planet and hundreds of UN inspectors on the ground that could have increased to 2000, 4000, 6000 or more, why would Bu$h go all bellicose and launch an illegal war of aggression that has cost the country dearly and made the threat of terrorism greater?"

The Constitution was supposed to check the unbridled power that government could collect. Who is protecting me from the government now that the Constitution is as "irrelevant" as the UN. Yeah, we care about Iraqi freedom and that is why we will break the Geneva Convention and sell all their public works off using the tax system we wrote for them to patriot profits back to the US. That is why we gave them depleted uranium that will pollute their land for 2.5 billion years. We care about the Iraqis. We really do.

Screw your assertion that I screw my question.... Owe and BTW Junior...Thanks for the anti-war lecture.... :eyes:

I don't see him claiming to know something he couldn't possibly know, he's always very careful and precise in what he says.

But by March of last year, I was pretty sure that Iraq had destroyed most of its WMD. And the evidence I read that convinced me that Iraq was not a threat to the US was available months beforehand, so I have no reason not to believe DK had read that info earlier and come to the same conclusions I did last March months earlier.

and certainly not any that could reach the United States, and that if they did try to invade a neighboring country, Israel and Saudi Arabia and Egypt (the three largest recipients of U.S. military aid) could easily take them out. In fact, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, we should have just had the Saudis and Egyptians take care of it.

When they were attacked by the U.S. and didn't use any weapons of mass destruction, then I KNEW FOR CERTAIN that Bush was lying.

Think about it. If you had WMD and you didn't use them when being invaded, then what would you be saving them for? Would they be your "good weapons for formal occasions"?

Because Kucinich wanted inspections you are saying he believed Iraq had WMD just like the other candidates? The other candidates that flat out SAID Iraq had WMD? The purpose of the inspections was to prove what Kucinich and a lot of DUers at the time were pretty damn confident about, that the Admin was lying. You let the inspectors do their jobs and PROVE that there are no WMD and you avoid an illegal invasion. And as we all know, instead Bush tells the inspectors to get out before they could finish the job and then Bush starts his oil war.

Just because you state that Kucinich could not be 100% sure does not deny the fact that the other candidates WERE 100% sure. You are proposing some serious spin IMHO.

TWL

Occassionally he said, IF there were WMD then the approach is wrong but he never ever conceded their presence. Indeed, he repeated his skepiticism and talked about lies of Bush admin and beat of war path drum.
Some others "anti-war" candidates accepted their presence but argued against unilateralism.
That's the facts.