Paul Krugman, Reality-Based?

Paul Krugman explains how the Dems ought to tackle the Petraeus hearings and delivers this ahistorical nonsense:

Fourth, the lesson of the past six years is that Republicans will accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic no matter what the Democrats do. Democrats gave Mr. Bush everything he wanted in 2002; their reward was an ad attacking Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, that featured images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Congressional Democrats gave Bush everything he wanted in 2002?  It was five long years ago, yet I remember as if it was only four and a half years ago that Democrats wanted strict Federal job protection for the workers covered by the reorganization and Bush wanted the President to have greater flexibility in hiring and firing.  Democrats wanted to protect Federal union employees, Republicans wanted to protect Americans - surely Krugman remember this as a campaign issue?

But don't trust my memory (I wouldn't!) - here are the NY Times editors following the Republican success in the 2002 mid-term election:

The president set two very appropriate goals for the necessarily brief lame-duck session that begins next week. Neither will be easy to finish but both are achievable. One is to complete work on a Department of Homeland Security. The other is to approve terrorism insurance. We would add a third: helping the unemployed.

Homeland security has been blocked by Democratic opposition to Mr. Bush's plan to reduce civil service protection for the employees of the new department. This is no longer a fight worth pursuing. While we believed the Democrats had the better position, the one thing voters made clear on Tuesday is that they support the president on the homeland security issue. The Democrats should go along, and Senator Robert Byrd, the powerful Democrat from West Virginia who believes that the antiterrorist apparatus was constructed too quickly, should drop his threat to filibuster the bill.

A bill the President was willing to sign was then passed later in November.

USA Today had a bit on the Cleland connection in their 2002 election coverage:

Cleland defeated by conservative

Few believed Republican Saxby Chambliss could paint Sen. Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, as soft on national security. But that's just what the conservative congressman did to score a surprising victory over the one-term Democrat.

Chambliss, 59, a four-term congressman from Moultrie, was virtually unknown in Atlanta and its Republican suburbs, where a hefty share of Georgia voters reside. But his message that Cleland was too liberal for Georgia resonated statewide. He cited the incumbent's vote on a proposed department of homeland security; Cleland had sided with fellow Democrats by insisting that workers' civil-service protections be retained. Chambliss even ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

The left-leaning Wikipedia has more under a fair and balanced subheading of "Political slanderings":

Max Cleland lost the 2002 general election to Republican Saxby Chambliss. A key element in that loss was a negative ad that challenged Cleland's votes in Congress on the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.

The text of the ad is as follows:

"As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead.

"He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth."

"Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times."

"But the record proves, Max Cleland is just misleading."

The issue in 2002 was civil service protections for Homeland Security employees, which Bush opposed and Cleland supported. The ad failed to point out that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before Bush did. Cleland originally co-sponsored the enabling legislation and eventually supported it, but as the bill moved through Congress, he cast a number of votes against it in hopes of getting a better bill. The Republican attack ads made it look as though Cleland was voting against Homeland Security itself, and one TV ad morphed Cleland's face into Saddam Hussein's while suggesting that Cleland was indifferent to the safety of the American people. This ad was so disgusting that Republican Sens. Hagel and McCain both protested it]

Well.  It is an article of lefty faith that the Evil Reps questioned Cleland's patriotism.  But has it also now become an article of that faith that Congressional Dems gave Bush "everything he wanted" in the summer and fall of 2002?  I am not qualified to put Prof. Krugman on the couch but I am curious - does he sincerely remember that 2002 election as he presented it (which would be a troubling example of selective memory), or is he deliberately presenting a falsehood, i.e., lying?   

As Will Rogers observed, "It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so."  One wonders how many other factoids Prof. Krugman "knows".  Well, I often enjoy a juice drink "based on real fruit juice".  Close inspection of the label reveals to the once blissfully ignorant that the product is 10% "real fruit juice".  One hopes that Krugman's "reality-based" analyses achieve a higher proportion of reality, even though his end product is clearly a bit diluted by fantasy and misinformation.

WILL ROGERS ANTICIPATES GEORGE BUSH: Who knew Will Rogers would back Bush:

"If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"

Or more broadly:

A fool and his money are soon elected.

BUT SERIOUSLY:  Prof. Krugman cites this Sept 26 2004 article by Gen. Petraeus as well as this Oct 5 2005 press briefing as examples of his reliable optimism.  However, let me pick this out from 2005:

Q    General, given the -- you have listed some caveats such as political progress and stopping of infiltrators.  Given the fairly bright picture of progress you've just painted, would you venture to predict that U.S. troops could begin leaving Iraq in fairly significant numbers by the end of next year?

 

GEN. PETRAEUS:  I never thought anyone would ask that question! (Laughter.)

 

Let me say, really, you know, again, this is going to be very conditions-based.  And I think, again, these events that I talked about -- and it's really three events:  the referendum, the elections, and the formation of the government -- all will be very, very important in forming or contributing to an environment in which, with adequate security forces at proper readiness levels, and with assistance in those other areas I talked about, particularly from neighboring countries in restricting the flow of foreign fighters and terrorists, that would make such reductions possible.  Obviously, that's the goal. That's what everyone is pointing to.  But again, very, very conditions-based.  And I think that that was laid out pretty well last week.

 

Q     I understand.  Everybody's saying conditions-based.  Would you venture a prediction -- you know the situation very well -- do you think that enough political progress will be made; do you think, given the improvement in the training, that that significant number of U.S. troops could begin to leave Iraq by the end of next year?

 

GEN. PETRAEUS:  I wouldn't venture that.  And I will tell you that I'm a qualified optimist, and that the qualification is that, again, Iraqi leaders very much doing what they want to do and what they need to do over the course of the next few months to keep the country together, to reach out to those that feel they may not have a stake in the success of the new Iraq; to provide competent, honest leadership at the national level, in the provinces, in the ministries; and, of course, to do the same in the security forces.  So --

Well, I think we all agree that Petraeus at least understands the issues in Iraq.  His statements about the quality and quantity of trained Iraqi security forces have not stood up well:

Iraqi Army Unable To Take Over Within A Year, Report Says
Breakup of National Police Is Urged

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 6, 2007; A01

Iraq's army, despite measurable progress, will be unable to take over internal security from U.S. forces in the next 12 to 18 months and "cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven," according to a report on the Iraqi security forces published today.

The report, prepared by a commission of retired senior U.S. military officers, describes the 25,000-member Iraqi national police force and the Interior Ministry, which controls it, as riddled with sectarianism and corruption. The ministry, it says, is "dysfunctional" and is "a ministry in name only." The commission recommended that the national police force be disbanded.

KRUGMAN ON SECURITY:  The Earnest Prof wrote this:

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks.

So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian killings (bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The Washington Post that “if a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian. If it went through the front, it’s criminal.” So the number of dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people.

"No independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down"?  Let's cut to the Iraq Body Count,a Brit group - they report that average daily civilian deaths in 2006 were 52 from gunfire/executions and 8.5/day from car bombs; the comparable figures for 2007 are 29 and 14.  With deaths from gunfires/executions down but from car bombs up, the total daily civilian violent deaths for 2007 has dropped from 60.5 (2006) to 43. 

The Iraq Body Count people are not delighted to be reporting this, so they offer this caveat and spin:

  These charts sometimes indicate a modest improvement in the security situation     for ordinary Iraqis post-surge, and this is not disputed. But these charts     will tend to under-represent reported violence for the more recent periods,     for the reasons stated above. The observed downward trend in these charts     will likely become less marked as data still in the pipeline is added (see Recent     Events for as yet unprocessed data).

  It is important to place the events of 2007 in context. Levels of violence     reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006. Only in comparison     to that could the first half of 2007 be regarded as an improvement. Despite     any efforts put into the surge, the first six months of 2007 was still the     most deadly first six months for civilians of any year since the invasion.

One wonders, yet again, what factual basis Prof. Krugman imagined for his assertion that "the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year".  The Saturday Times has more on this, with no suggestion that Krugman might be right.

Comments

[Cecil Turner]

His statements about the quality and quantity of trained Iraqi security forces have not stood up well:

Those assessments are so subjective that I'd be reluctant to draw such conclusions. Moreover, that Times article was about as negative a take as one could draw from the commission's report. Contrast the tone of DeYoung's article with this video of Gen Jones's testimony accompanying the report:

I would like to say a few words about the impact of the surge. Tactical success for both Iraq and Coalition forces in the Baghdad region has been achieved . . . [emphasis added]

If that's the negative report, Dems are going to have a tough time spinning it as a failure. Judging from the video, Gen Jones appears to be saying improvements in the security forces provides an opportunity for a drawdown. That'd seem to support Gen Petraeus's estimates rather better than DeYoung's ridiculously slanted report. (And thank God for C-Span and YouTube.)

[Erin O'Brien]

Wikipedia can be very, very difficult.

Here's one example.

[Walter]

From Best of the Web:

Thanks to ... Jeff Dobbs...

Isn't he the Jeff who used to post here before authoring a book with Marcy Wheeler?

[PeterUK]

Osama bin Laden blames the Democrats and he should know.

[PeterUK]

Osama bin Laden blames the Democrats and he should know.

[Senashi]

Maybe it was the PC IG lying about the five year law and the classified OMS personnel and the Hatch Act(why they asked to be classified). There's also the five year law as it applies to in country agency employees, but extensions are the decision of the President under no statutory or other form and now new legislation allows foreign agency employees in country to receive cash payments from a new Presidential account if they are not given over five years emmployment. This seems like Hatch Act too, but everyone missed the employment promised once one is classified beyond the five year intelligence five year law for agency employees in country classfied as different from the in country national employees and agency employees in country; this is the opposite, making that agency employee classfied as different from the domestic agency employees and those serving overseas and the host country national employees in country; those employees are not allowed employment based on the five year counter intelligence law, which applies to IIPA and , yes, probably the Hatch Act banning employment, but that would be a promise of empployment or monies; unless someone violated the agency employees IIPA which applies under the five year agency employee law and IIPA, which would be illegal for the other agency, unless someone like Fitz, who watches all these, went ahead and traded for a bad agency employee to another bad agency employee witht he intent of ending the other agency employee.

[Clarice]

I read the transcript and you know he sounded like one of the less deranged Kosniks.

[boris]

If that was a Hit you better Run Walter!

[Senashi]

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/KotzTestimony070725.pdf

[cathyf]

Reading the whole WaPo article, it seems that Ms. DeYoung doesn't quite understand that the Iraqi army is a different (and far more successful at the moment) organization than the Iraqi police. In those two quoted paragraphs, she lumps them together as "security forces."

Just an odd comment... One of the firmly-believed magical thoughts of the Bush-bungled-the-war crowd is that one of the most important "blunders" in the immediate post-war period was the "decision" to "disband" the Iraqi army. (The magical part being that the Iraqi army had already collapsed when everyone deserted and went home, and there wasn't anything to actually disband. No matter what the US government decided, the Iraqi army was already disbanded and that wasn't a fact under American control.)

But here we are, 4+ years later. The New Iraqi Army is doing very well, and enjoys broad support from the Iraqi people. One of the few national organizations that enjoys national support, in a country desperately needing successful national institutions to hold the country together.

Then there is the Iraqi police. Which was NOT disbanded and still retains lots of structure and people from the Saddam era. In other words, the exact situation that the "Bush is a blunderer" crowd say was the CORRECT way to deal with Saddam's institutions. And the IP is a "dysfunctional" mess "riddled with sectarianism and corruption". So, explain to me again why it was "bungling" to dissolve and replace Saddam's corrupt institutions?

[hit and run]

Walter:
Isn't he the Jeff who used to post here before authoring a book with Marcy Wheeler?

No, he's some guy that makes videos up in Bar Harbor, Maine.

[Sue]

Isn't he the Jeff who used to post here before authoring a book with Marcy Wheeler?

No, I think this Jeff is the guy who keeps his local emergency room doctor on the payroll.

[Clarice]

cathyf, it must really hurt to be so logical in such a chaotic world.OTOH , everytime I think my head won't tolerate reading any more nonsense, I read one of your posts, and realize there are still some lights flckering in the darkness..

[hit and run]

Clarice:
still some lights flckering in the darkness..

some flares too.

[cathyf]

More of the findings as reported in Ms. DeYoung's article:

? The Iraqi army is short of "seasoned leadership" at all levels, with a particular shortage of noncommissioned officers. High levels of army absenteeism strain the system, though there is an "abundance of volunteers for service."

? Logistics remain the Iraqi army's "Achilles' heel," and adequate capability in this area is "at least 24 months away."

In other words, we should surrender to the global caliphate and sharia law not because they are murdering innocents, not because they are defeating our troops in battle, not because the Iraqi Army refuses to fight courageously and honorably for their country, not even because we have been convinced that Mohammed's prophecies are correct and so we should convert to Islam and submit to Allah. No, we are going to surrender in a fit of pique because it's taking a year or two too long to get enough Iraqi supply sargents properly trained!

[Walter]

...some guy that makes videos up in Bar Harbor...

Durn. I thought he was in Dallas. I remember something about Texas, anyway.

And isn't the Main poster here 'cboldt'?

[hit and run]

Clarice:
still some lights flckering in the darkness..

And some flares...

[Clarice]

You know, HIT, I've heard about this HBO series "Big Love" and maybe Jane and I don't have to mud wrestle if you get my drift.

[Walter]

Okay, that was unfair, even if meant in jest. My apologies.

[hit and run]

Jane made polygamy off limits in the thread that (d)evolved into the gay marriage debate.

I didn't say so at the time, but, I wept.

[hit and run]

Walter:
Okay, that was unfair, even if meant in jest. My apologies.

Oh, you are right I'm offended.

That you apologized.

After all this time, I thought you knew me and now, I'm just not sure.

[cboldt]

-- And isn't the Main poster here 'cboldt'? --

"Main" v. "Maine"

I'm in the latter group. When I post.

[Walter]

Well, I'm not going to retract that apology just because some anonymous commentator is offended. I have integrity!

[hit and run]

Well, you can kiss my as.....pen......will already be turning...They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.

[hit and run]

Two things.

1) my intervention worked, this post is proof.

2) see ya monday.

[PeterUK]

Nancy with the Laughing Hair this is one foe Silky Pony.

[Rick Ballard]

The supply sergeants are probably already adequately trained. When the Iraqi pols and military leadership stop stealing with both hands the supply situation will be rectified in short order. No one has any idea as to when that might occur.

Ms DeYoung probably does know precisely what she is doing in conflating the IA and the IP. It's rather slipshod propaganda but I'll wager $100 that the average WaPo reader will swallow it whole while clapping like a seal eyeing the herring in the trainers hand.

Col. Kilcullen gave a preview of one of the most important elements of what Gen Petraeus will say and the WaPo piece doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the "Salvation Councils".

I suppose the propagandists haven't figured out how to hammer it into the narrative as yet.

[Ralph L]

"One place where a beard would stand out would be southeast Asia, the Philippines, Indonesia," Clarke told ABC News.
Osama might stand out because he's a foot taller than everyone in SE Asia. Is Clarke really that stupid, and what does that say about the NSC?

[PeterUK]

"No, we are going to surrender in a fit of pique because it's taking a year or two too long to get enough Iraqi supply sargents properly trained!"

I have just been tracking a consignment which went.
Montevideo.
Buenos Aires.
Paris,
Brussels.
West Midlands Airport(Custom)
and the big city next door to me.
At Courier Awaiting Delivery.
Attempted delivery,No One Home
Having waited in all day for this and another delivery, only to find, on ringing Customer Services,that the have all buggered off for the Weekend,I don't think the Iraqi Army is doing too badly.

[Sue]

I think Osama is on meth. He looks like some of the meth addicts that have come through the court system.

[PeterUK]

I think Osama bin Laden is in Area 51 every time Bush wants to associate al Qaeda with the Democrats, they clean him up and put him in front of the cameras.
Osama loves Chomsky,pure propaganda gold.

[EH]

Democrats wanted to protect Federal union employees, Republicans wanted to protect Americans

Is this comment supposed to be taken seriously?

[PeterUK]

Eh?

[Clarice]

PUK, You think Rove just rode off into the sunset?

[Rick Ballard]

"You think Rove just rode off into the sunset?"

Well, he did.

It's the fact that he was mounted on Pegasus and left to the strains of Die Valkyrie that might give one pause.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
It is my hypothesis that Rove did nothing,nada,zilch,he just popped into the office and out the back.
"How are things Karl"?
"Summer time and the living if easy">
"'Suppose you're going fishing again today"?
"Fish are jumpin an the cotton is high".
"Well at least there will be somewhere for the Secret Service to hide."
"See you later Karl,we'll fill you on what you get blamed for,sure does make the Democrats wild,saves me a passel of trouble."

[Walter]

my as.....pen......will already be turning

Leave it to HnR to tease out the hidden meaning 'bout which we have speculated lo these many years.

[Clarice]

And then we haven't heard from Soylent for a few days--The fact that both men have been off the radar at the same time.......Just sayin...........

[Topsecretk9]

Osama also name checks Michael Scheuer - HAH - I love it.

[Dave Schuler]

Will Rogers may have said it but when he did he was quoting Josh Billings (Henry Wheeler Shaw).

[Clarice]

You thought I was kidding about the Rovester?
Daily Kos: “Whenever ‘Uncle Bin’ does this, it results in renewed support and better ‘numbers’ for Bush…and I doubt this is merely a ‘coincidence’.”

[Steve J.]

" Democrats wanted to protect Federal union employees, Republicans wanted to protect Americans"

This is a perfect example of the crap Krugman was referring to. Thanx for proving his point, Tim.

[maryerose]

Durbin was at his classic best today nay-saying the report of General Petraeus. These dems will have a lot to answer for in 08 including Bin Laden mentioning how disappointed he is in them. They continue to remain clueless about the war on terror. It will cost them dearly in the 08 election.
Cold cash Jefferson is mad he will be tried in Va. instead of D,C.. Maybe justice will actually be served there unlike Libby's trial.

[RichatUF]

cathyf-

So, explain to me again why it was "bungling" to dissolve and replace Saddam's corrupt institutions?

Something about new wine in new wine skins and old wine in old wine skins...something like that would probably make a few progressives head explode.

RalphL-

Osama might stand out because he's a foot taller than everyone in SE Asia. Is Clarke really that stupid, and what does that say about the NSC?

Yes, Clarke is that stupid. He was still working the Y2K problem in July 2001. OBL-I'd have the see the tape but my guess is that he is in N. Yemen, Bosnia, or he's dead and it was a body double we saw this evening. When I saw the tape, I started to think about the Saddam tape that was released after the US had captured Baghdad. I heard that Scheuer was quoted positively and that that winner, one of the guys that the CIA wanted to open a Professional Conduct Board against, got his "expert" face time. One would think that if he were being quoted as someone to listen too he would go to Montana somewhere and never be heard from again.

[RichatUF]

H&R

Well, you can kiss my as.....pen......will already be turning...They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.

I needed my decoder ring...

PUK-

Osama bin Laden is in Area 51 every time Bush wants to associate al Qaeda with the Democrats

There is no such area as Area 51...

[Clarice]

edwardjayepstein's whose site is almost impossible to navigate has screenshots of the first 4 or 5 Osama videos.

[Steve J.]

"These dems will have a lot to answer for in 08 including Bin Laden mentioning how disappointed he is in them."

On the other hand, Bin Laden is delighted with Pres. Fredo:

FLIP:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01

FLOP:
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. G.W. Bush March 13, 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. G.W. Bush March 13, 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

[Topsecretk9]

thought others might find this interesting --- comes in an article on the Oscar Wyatt trial underway...Houston Chron

Vincent testified last year in the trial of another Oil-for-Food defendant, South Korean businessman Tongsun Park.

In that testimony, Vincent said Wyatt had crisscrossed the globe trying to persuade world leaders to ease the international sanctions imposed on Iraq after Saddam's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

In that case, prosecutors presented documents that suggested the Iraqis viewed Wyatt as their conduit to the White House after Bill Clinton became president in 1993.

They showed a July 1995 letter reportedly written by Nizar Hamdoon, Iraq's former representative to the United Nations, which read: "Dear Oscar, Samir briefed me of your conversation with President Clinton this week."

An entry in Clinton's diary records a call he made to Wyatt on July 25, 1995, according to archives at the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Ark.

Wyatt's relations with the two Bush administrations have been less friendly. Wyatt was an outspoken critic of former President Bush's decision to go to war to expel Saddam's troops from Kuwait.

And that administration disapproved of a December 1990 trip Wyatt and former Texas Gov. John Connally took to Baghdad to secure the freedom of Westerners taken hostage by Saddam.

The White House press office did not return repeated calls Thursday.

During the Park trial, Vincent also testified that Wyatt provided Saddam's government with medical supplies, telecommunications equipment and a pair of global positioning systems for Iraqi army helicopters, and met with Saddam himself in 1995.

Executive orders issued in 1990 generally barred Americans from spending money to travel to Iraq or to export goods or services to that country, without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department.

Vincent pleaded guilty two years ago to charges that he failed to tell the U.S. government he was acting on behalf of the Iraqi government when Saddam's regime was the target of economic sanctions. As part of his plea deal, he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

[RichatUF]

Rick-

Didn't know this Karen DeYoung. So I did a little googling:

...She also has served as assistant managing editor for national news, national editor, London bureau chief, foreign editor, and Latin America bureau chief...Areas of Expertise: DeYoung is an expert in issues regarding U.S. foreign policy and Latin America.

Hum that bio seems to track a few people that have been brought up on the thread.

[Topsecretk9]

Oh this is rich SteveJ is reduced to "quoting" quotable quotes ---

HEH----

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"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, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is 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 we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"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 ... 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source