Winning the People

They sure are winning hearts and minds:

Jordanians revile Zarqawi
By Paul Garwood
Thousands of Jordanians rallied in the capital and other cities, shouting "Burn in hell, Abu Musab Zarqawi" a day after three deadly hotel bombings that killed at least 59 persons.

Wait a minute here....I thought George Bush causes terrorism. We, the great Satan, are the cause of terrorism. Why is this Zarqawi attacking fellow Arabs, Jordanian arabs nonetheless, at hotels? "Well, they were 'frequented by westerners.'" Uh huh. The answer is that they really want is an islamist state. (They've said as much about Iraq) It's really quite irrelevant whether you're the USA or France. You are the Infidel. Death to the Infidel! (Note the rioting in France. And no, its not due to a headscarf law. Grow up.) Oh, and last time I checked, the Twin Towers were hit before the war in Iraq.

The Power of Freedom

Just some thoughts from some Iraqis and others

From BBC:
Saad:

Iraqis are feeling better. They are breathing the air of freedom. They
read, watch and say what they want.

They travel, work and receive a living wage. They use mobile phones, satellite dishes and the internet, which they did not even know before.

The negative side, which is transient, is that some here are trying to force others to accept their way and even using force to achieve that.

As for terrorism, we are now beginning to unite against it and to defeat it.

I say to you: Wait two or three years and you will be pleasantly surprised.

Noura:

While we lost security after Saddam's fall, we gained our freedom and a chance to build a new society.

Kaban:

The only thing that worries us is the security situation. However, those who say that security was better in the past are completely wrong.

It is true we did not have suicide car bombings in Saddam's era, but our homes did not feel safe from the intrusion of Saddam's security men, who came in the middle of the night to kidnap, kill or rape.

Our insecurity then was also not highlighted on the Arab satellite television channels as it is now. Things are now complicated but we, as Iraqis, understand that in the end everything will be OK for future generations.

Walid Jumblatt, big-time Lebanese Druze leader:

I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Berlin Wall has fallen.

Dr. Mohammed T. Al-Rasheed:

Bravo Iraq! For history, Jan. 30, 2005, is one magnificent day for Iraq and the Arab nation. Regardless of who won and who lost, the day should be a permanent fixture on the Arab calendar forever. I don’t want to talk politics; I simply want to celebrate history.

In spite of everything, the Iraqis voted. They did so with a passion and a seriousness that gives the lie to the cliché that Arabs are not ready for democracy. One myth down, a thousand to go.

About Those Lies

Its funny the tendancy to take an obscure statement and run with it. Anyhow...

Jack Kelly: About that Iraq 'deception'

Mr. Reid claimed his action was prompted by the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, for allegedly lying to a federal grand jury about from whom he learned that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq," Sen. Reid said.

But Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had made it clear that that was not what the Libby indictment was about. "This indictment is not about the war," he said. "This indictment will not seek to prove the war was justified or unjustified."

The Iraq Survey Group found no large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. This could be because no such weapons actually existed.

Or it could be because they were moved to another country between the time Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq and when the war actually began.

"We've had six or seven credible reports of Iraqi weapons being moved into Syria before the war," a senior administration official told reporter Kenneth Timmerman.

Or it could be the Iraq Survey Group had an unusually restrictive definition of what constitutes a WMD stockpile.

The 4th Infantry Division discovered in an ammo dump near the town of Baiji 55 gallon drums of chemicals which, when mixed together, form nerve gas. They were stored next to surface-to-surface missiles which had been configured to carry a liquid payload.

If prewar intelligence was faulty, the fault lies with the CIA which supplied the erroneous information, not with the political leaders, Democratic and Republican, who relied upon it.

But Democrats who had access to the same intelligence President Bush had, and who because of it voted to authorize war with Iraq, are charging now that the president deliberately deceived the nation into war.
[...]

The press' amnesia has convinced Democrats they can regain power by lying about prewar intelligence. But facts are stubborn things. "The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments," said the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments," said the Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence, issued in March. Thanks to really lousy reporting, most Americans are unaware of how much evidence there is of Saddam's WMD programs and his ties to international terror groups. This is a debate Republicans should welcome.

Bush Lied!!!!!

Well, this one sure has been resurfacing lately. Not that it ever really went away, it is just increasing in furvor due to the recent indictments which don't actually say anything about pre-war. But oh well, they don't report the news, they make it.

It is rather difficult, for me anyway, to pinpoint what exactly they mean by "Bush Lied". Here are the points that I can seem to make out, even if they really are incoherent because they're also false:

Bush's "lies":

1. Iraq was an imminent threat
2. Iraq had WMDs
3. Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda

I would say those make up the meat of the argument, although no doubt when people say "Bush lied" I'm sure they're not altogether sure of specifics and are simply spouting it, probably believing that Bush has lied every time his mouth opens. Now to address the points:

First, some general background reading:
Why We Are In Iraq
The Right War for the Right Reasons

1. Iraq was an imminent threat.

This one is the most perplexing. I point to an article by Stephen F. Hayes, from 2004, called "The Imminence Myth". As he points out, Bush did not claim that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat, quite the opposite, in fact:

In fact, the case for war was built largely on the opposite assumption: that waiting until Iraq presented an imminent threat was too risky. The president himself made this argument in his 2003 State of the Union address:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

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.

It didn't take long for the media to get it wrong. One day after Bush said we must not wait until the threat is imminent, the Los Angeles Times reported on its front page that Bush had promised "new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world." Also, "Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent." Exactly
backwards.

But don't trust just Hayes, look it up yourself. Here's the state of the Union address, just before the war.

Ok folks, here's the crux of the reason for the war. To prevent Saddam from becoming an imminent threat.

Consider also, as I have written before, this, by George Friedman:

If one country is afraid that another country has WMD and might use them, you don’t start threatening them with war months before you are ready and wage a very public countdown to a proposed attack date. If you really believe a country has WMD, you say nothing and make no threats until you are ready to strike. (268-269, America's Secret War)

That one really should not even be an issue, but for some reason it is.

Moving on to number two....

2. Iraq had WMDs.

First, some general reading:

No WMDs? Really?
Is this one of Saddam's labs?
Saddam and the Bomb
Not Missing: Moved
Democrats Say the Darndest Things!
Iraqi Terrorists Almost Snatched Chemical Warheads
Iraq's WMDs
About Those Iraqi Weapons . . .

Now, the funny thing about this one is that it is in many ways wed to the first. The only way Bush can be wrong, much less having lied, on this one, is if he claimed that Iraq had stockpiles of nuclear bombs, with their "death to america" logos flashing and pointing at the White House. Bizarre as it may seem, this seems to be what people think when they say "Bush lied about WMDs" The truth is not so simple.

For one, Bush did not contend that Saddam was loaded to the teeth with WMDs, rather the emphasis was on the prevention of his aquiring WMDs and also on the programs he had for the production of WMDs. This is, of course, still quite valid today, perhaps even more so. Consider David Kay:

"I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

Well...how is that possible anyway? Oh, I see.

After all, how could anyone doubt he was trying to aquire them? He had used them on his own people! And with sanctions about to fall apart.....its not something pleasant to think about.

At any rate, as for those non-existant WMDs, just look at the links I provided above. What we have found is quite revealing in the extreme. Including Russian corruption and likely help in hiding and moving them across the Syrian border, which seems more and more likely day by day. Trucks crossing the border right up to the war, Israeli intelligence reporting that they were WMDs, it goes on and on.

Also, strangely enough, the fact is that WMDs components and weapons have been found. Why does no one know this? Because the press does not report it.

Even the Duelfer Report, which was supposed to have debunked Iraq's WMD threat once and for all, did nothing of the sort:

The only reasonable conclusion anyone can draw from the Duelfer report -- even if we ignore the other mountains of evidence about Saddam's WMD -- is that Saddam had WMD and in the six months we spent trying to convince Kofi, Dominique, and their pals to act, Saddam's regime moved the WMD, cleaned out the evidence, and did their best to conceal what they had done. That they did so with the active participation of Assad's Syria is also terribly clear.

I could probably go on and on about his one, but for now, this should be enough to convince any sane person that Bush did not, in fact, "lie".

3. Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda

This one is probably the funniest of all, because it is something Bush has pointed out. But it is also true. Wow, can't be much lying here. Can there? Well, sadly, yes. In the press and on the left, it is still fashionable to assert that Saddam and al-Qaeda were completely seperate, in fact they could not work together because of religious differences.

The entire thing is patently absurd. Consider:

The Connection Continued
Saddam's Iraq Was Motel 6 for Terrorism
Inconvenient Facts
The Worst of Intentions: What Saddam's Iraq was up to
The Mother of All Connections
Jordan King: Iraq Refused to Deport Zarqawi
The Osama-Saddam connection: in Yemen
Another Link in the Chain
Saddam Sponsord Birth of al Qaeda in Iraq
Saddam and al Qaeda
The Al-Douri Factor
The Four Day War
An Evolving Assessment
Saddam and bin Laden
The Rise of ansar al islam
The Pope of Terrorism Pt. 1
The Pope of Terroism Pt.2
The Algerian connection

Bush did not claim that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. In fact, no one did. But somehow that is the favorite talking point. What Bush did say, however, has simply been strengthened. That Saddam collaborated with terrorists. What else is there to say? There was a connection. Saddam was supporting terrorism. End of story. The only way to believe otherwise is to lie yourself.


At the end of the day, none of this should really even matter. Why the angst and gnashing of teeth over the removal of a brutal dictator, who gased his own people and put them through paper shreders? Saddam was a threat not only to the US, but to the entire free world. He had shown no hesitancy in using weapons in the past, why should he just stop because we want him to? Why then would he not account for his weapons, and throw out inspectors? Those who really think Saddam was just peacefully siting in Bagdad, looking after his people when the US threw him out of power, are deluding themselves.

A Question

The Libby indictment has nothing to do with Iraq, but it seems as if reporters, democrats and anti-war kooks want it to be. They see as this entire investigation as an investigation into the rationale and reason for the war. An inqury into the 'lies that took us to war'. Nevermind that Fitzgerald said that it had nothing to do with the war. To those people, I have one question: So, should Saddam still be in power? Is that what you would prefer? Because if not, I see no reason to be so rabidly against the Iraq war. It comes to the point where many come off as Saddam supporters, even if they say they are not--and that impression is only boosted by some of the trial coverage.

It really makes one wonder. Bush didn't lie, for starters, and how could anyone really want Saddam back? How is it possible to be so angry at the removal of a brutal dictator?

UPDATE: David Horowitz is brilliant as usual:

Reid’s analysis has the other shoe on the wrong foot, too. It’s Democrats who have attempted to destroy to the character, reputation, and credibility of George W. Bush for more than two years and to criminalize their political differences with him over the war. Recall that the removal of Saddam Hussein was demanded by two presidents, one of them – Bill Clinton – a Democrat, and was authorized by a majority of Democrats in multiple Congresses. The last three Democratic presidential candidates have considered Saddam’s WMDs a major national security threat. Recall that the authorization for the use of force to remove Saddam was passed by Democratic majorities in both houses and that John Kerry – a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee with access to all the intelligence information that the Bush administration had – spoke eloquently on behalf of the authorization to remove Saddam by force. Recall that full membership of the Security Council voted on November 8, 2002, to give Saddam a 30 day ultimatum to report on what he had done with the tons – that’s thousands of pounds, Harry – of nerve gas and other WMDs that UN inspectors had already established he had manufactured; and that Saddam failed to do so. That’s why we went to war. Recall that even Russian and Jordanian intelligence said Saddam had WMDs, as did the intelligence agencies of a dozen other nations (and the Russians should know).

After his national temper tantrum, Harry Reid faced a crowd of reporters, where he thundered, “If the administration had all the information that they have now back then, they wouldn't even have brought it to the Congress for a vote.” What would Sen. Reid have us do – reinstate Saddam as president of Iraq? Reopen the rape rooms and fire up the plastic shredders? The United States has toppled a monster, given a captive people their freedom, and sunk the dagger of democracy deep into the heart of the Muslim world. Millions of Iraqis – including members of the Sunni Triangle – voted for a pluralistic, democratic future, a major setback for the terrorists. Libya came to an unexpected arms agreement, thanks to the threat of force in Iraq. Lebanon demanded its right to self-determination. Syria initiated a pullout after 30 years of occupation, and Egypt began democratization of its own. In the face of these developments, the best foreign policy the Democratic Party’s Senate leadership can offer is: Ba’athists forever.

We know nothing about the cargo trucked by an ominous-looking Russian-led caravan across the Syrian border before the beginning of the war. Reams of intelligence ties Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda before the war, not least including the fact that its terrorist affiliate Ansar al-Islam conducted training in northern Iraq during his reign of terror. And the White House has consistently stated there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

What we know is that the Left’s military alternative would have ended in disaster. There is no way we could have maintained 200,000 troops on the Iraqi border in perpetuity, as Ted Kennedy proposed. The American people’s complacency after one of the most rapidly successful military campaigns in modern history is troubling enough. If terrorists pouring in from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia had begun sniping at U.S. soldiers stationed on the border – as we know now they would have – it would have made Nick DeGenova’s dream of a million Mogadishus come true. Popular support would have imploded, as it did in Beirut and Somalia, and the Left would have forced us to retreat yet again, emboldening the terrorists, and leaving Saddam Hussein further in their debt. How would he have rewarded their service when he finally acquired WMDs, as the Duefler Report confirms was his long-range plan?

And this was also posted in his blog:

As I have often said (and resaid) the inexcusable element in the Democrats' attacks on their President in the midst of a war is that they are betraying a war they authorized in the first place. In the wake of Harry Reid's unhinged accusations the Republican National Committee has posted a collection of statements by Democratic Party leaders reminding us why we went to war.

DEM OFFICIALS HAVE WARNED ABOUT WMDs IN IRAQ FOR YEARS

Former President Bill Clinton:

President Clinton: "We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And 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's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2 /17/98)

President Clinton: "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 ..." ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)

Former Vice President Al Gore:

Gore: "You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We're Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Gore: "[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's Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons ..." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

Sen. Clinton: "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 Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Press Conference, January 22, 2003)

Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):

Sen. Kerry: "The Crisis Is Even More Threatening By Virtue Of The Fact That Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability, And Is Pursuing A Nuclear Weapons Development Program." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14332)

Sen. Kerry: "If You Don't Believe ... Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):

Sen. Edwards: "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." (MSNBC's "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)

Sen. Edwards: "The Question Is Whether We're Going To Let This Man [Saddam] Who's Been Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction Continue To Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Get Nuclear Capability, And Get To The Place Where If We're Going To Stop Him, If He Invades A Country Around Him, It'll Cost Millions Of Lives As Opposed To Thousands Of Lives." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 2/6/03)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):

Reid: "The Problem Is Not Nuclear Testing; It Is Nuclear Weapons ... The Number Of Third World Countries With Nuclear Capabilities Seems To Grow Daily. Saddam Hussein's Near Success With Developing A Nuclear Weapon Should Be An Eye-Opener For Us All." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN):

Bayh: "In My Opinion - And I Do, As You Know, I'm Fairly Hawkish On Iraq. 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." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/4/02)

Bayh: "The Question Is, Do You Want Saddam Hussein Having Chemical Weapons, Having Biological Weapons, Possibly One Day Having A Nuclear Weapon? Do You Want To Have To Deal With That? And If The Answer Is No, Then What Do You Do About It And When Do You Do Something About It?" (CNN's "Live Event/Special," 12/1/01)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):

Biden: "First Of All, We Don't Know Exactly What He Has. ... We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability. There Is A Real Debate How Far Off That Is, Whether It's A Matter Of Years Or Whether It's A Matter Of Less Than That, And So There's Much We Don't Know." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/4/02)

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM):

Richardson: "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." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 5/29/98)

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL):

Sen. Graham: "I Don't Know If I've Seen All The Evidence, But I've Seen Enough To Be Satisfied That There Has Been A Continuing Effort By Saddam Hussein Since The End Of The Gulf War, Particularly Since 1998, To Re-Establish And Enhance Iraq's Capacity Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological And Nuclear." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/8/02)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):

Durbin: "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." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673)

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI):

Feingold: "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." (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, 10/9/05, p. S10147)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL):

Nelson: "And My 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." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/25/02)

Nelson: "Well, 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." (CNBC, "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV):

Sen. Byrd: "The Last U.N. 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 ..." ("Threats And Responses," The New York Times, 10/4/02)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

Pelosi: "Others Have Talked About This Threat That Is Posed By Saddam Hussein. Yes, He Has Chemical Weapons, He Has Biological Weapons, He Is Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. H7777)

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA):

Harman: "I Certainly Think [Saddam's] Developing Nuclear Capability, Which, Fortunately, The Israelis Set Back 20 Years Ago With Their Preemptive Attack, Which, In Hindsight, Looks Pretty Darn Good." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 8/27/02)

Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO):

"Gephardt Said He's 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 Having A Nuclear Device. Now, You'll Get A Debate About Whether It's One Year Away Or Five Or Six." (Morton M. Kondracke, "Gephardt Pushes Consensus Action Against Iraq Threat," Roll Call, 9/23/02)

Former Secretary Of State Madeline Albright:

Madeline Albright: "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 Security Threat We Face, And It Is A Threat Against Which We Must And Will Stand Firm." ("Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting," Federal News Service, 2/18/98)