Topics in the News: WMD
Hillary Clinton on War & Peace
: Dec 13, 2007
Believed, with others, that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapon
Q: Are the Revolutionary Guards proliferators of mass destruction?A: Well, many of us believe that. Earlier this year, Senator Edwards told an audience in Israel that the nuclear threat from Iran was the greatest threat to our generation.
Back in 2004, Senator Obama told the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board that he would even consider nukes to take out Iran's nuclear capacity. So there was a very broadly based belief that they were pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate
Chris Dodd on War & Peace
: Dec 13, 2007
Keep all options on the table for Iran
Q: In regards to Iran, should all options be on the table?A: Well, certainly, considering under the circumstances we're talking about here. I think the vote in
September [that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards proliferators of mass destruction] was very important. We're all seeking to be the nominee of our party, seeking the presidency.
Click for Chris Dodd on other issues.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate
Ron Paul on War & Peace
: Dec 2, 2007
Anger abroad at US for planning 14 permanent bases in Iraq
Q: John McCain said after the YouTube debate, "I tried to point out to Rep. Paul that the soldiers in Iraq believe that they are winning & they don't agree with his description of the motives for which we went to war in Iraq." You want to respond to him?
A: Well, yes, we do disagree on this. I don't believe we went to the war for the right reason. There were no weapons of mass destruction. It had nothing to do with 9/11. So we were there for the wrong reason and he doesn't understand the motivations
for why they want to come here. It's not because we are wealthy and prosperous and free. They come here because we are in their country. And even if there is an improvement, which we all hope there is, we plan to keep 14 bases over there, a huge
Naval base, and we have this huge embassy. We have a permanent plan to stay there and take over these $30 trillion worth of oil in that region. And the people in those countries know that and that's why they are very angry. And to deny that is folly.
Click for Ron Paul on other issues.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer
John Edwards on War & Peace
: Oct 30, 2007
Iran military resolution enables Bush to invade Iran
We need to make it absolutely clear that we have no intention of letting Bush, Cheney, or this administration invade Iran because they have been rattling the saber over and over and over. What this resolution did, written literally in the language of the
neo-cons, is it enables Bush to do exactly what he wants to do. He continues to march forward. He continues to say this is a terrorist organization. He continues to say these are proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.
Click for John Edwards on other issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
Bill Richardson on Homeland Security
: Oct 26, 2007
Ignoring Nuclear Test Ban creates world distrust
The Bush administration tossed aside the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Our message to the world: We can be trusted to create any kind of weapon of mass destruction we want. Most of the world,
I believe, trusts the US to manage its nuclear arsenal carefully and responsibly, and they are resigned to the fact that we will control a large arsenal of highly destructive weapons.
Yet they also want us to abide by accepted rules for testing, for development of new weapons, for balancing our strength against other nations'. When we step out of standing agreements, and begin developing new weapons on our own, the world loses faith.
Why are we the arbiter of who can own or design weapons of mass destruction? People who don't trust the US can't answer that question.
Click for Bill Richardson on other issues.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 73
Fred Thompson on War & Peace
: Oct 9, 2007
FactCheck: Said Saddam had WMDs, but not at 2003 invasion
Thompson corrected moderator Chris Matthews, who wrongly implied that the former senator had said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction "right before" the US-led invasion of Iraq:Q: You believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. Do you
believe they were there right before we got in--they were moved out somewhere?A: No, I didn't say that. I was just stating what was obvious, that Saddam had had them prior. They used them against his own people--against the Kurds.
Thompson was correct. Matthews referred to remarks the senator made in Iowa. The Des Moines Register quoted him as saying, "We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD.
He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program." Thompson didn't say in the speech when Saddam "had had WMD." The Register updated its article with a follow-up interview in which he made clear he was referring to a period long before the war.
Click for Fred Thompson on other issues.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn MI
Fred Thompson on War & Peace
: Oct 9, 2007
Iraq certainly had WMDs in the past & would have nukes now
Q: We haven't been able to find the WMD. You said recently that you believed that there were such weapons in Iraq. Do you believe they were there right before we got in and they were moved out somewhere?A: No, no.
Q: What do you believe?
A: No, I
didn't say that. I was just stating what was obvious, and that is that Saddam had had them prior. They used them against his own people, against the Kurds.
Q: Okay.
A: And of course, he had a nuclear reactor back in '81 when the Israelis bombed that.
And the Iraqi Study Group reported that he had designs on reviving his nuclear program, which he had started once upon a time. So there's not question that he had had them in times past. And in my own estimation, there's no question that if left to his
own devices, he and his son would still be running that place, attacking their neighbors and murdering their own people and developing a nuclear capability, especially in looking at what Iran is doing. And the whole place would be nuclearized.
Click for Fred Thompson on other issues.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Sam Brownback on War & Peace
: Oct 9, 2007
Iraq war is about terrorism, not oil
Q: Would we have gone to war in Iraq if we weren't so dependent on Middle East oil?A: I don't believe that in the least. What I voted for was the war on terrorism. And Afghanistan was where the Taliban was -- where al Qaeda was located; it was run by
the Taliban. And we saw in Iraq what we thought was the mixture of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. And it was in 2003, this was in close proximity to 2001, when we had the 9/11 crisis, and I wasn't about to trust that Saddam
Hussein wasn't going to mix terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. And we haven't found the weapons of mass destruction, but that doesn't mean we leave. And I think the Bush administration has generally done well military, and I think the military
has done a fabulous job. I think we have done poorly on the political side. That's what has been poorly done by the Bush administration--it hasn't been well-handled politically. We've got to get a better bipartisan political solution--we can.
Click for Sam Brownback on other issues.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Ron Paul on War & Peace
: Sep 27, 2007
We went into Iraq under false pretenses of WMD and 9/11
Q: Regarding declining minority enlistment, what do you say to minorities who are overwhelmingly opposed to the continuation of this war?A: The most important promise we keep is the oath to obey the Constitution. We just shouldn't be going to all
these wars. We shouldn't have so many injured and in our hospitals because we shouldn't go to war unless it's declared. If it's declared, we should go win it and get it over with. We went in under false pretense. There were no weapons of mass destruction
There are still people who believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, yet 15 of the people were from Saudi Arabia. We need to live up to our principles so there are less injured veterans, but when they come home we better jolly well take care of
them, and we're not doing a very good job right now, because all the money's going overseas. We're broke. We got to do something about it. And we can't perpetuate a welfare state AND police an empire without going bankrupt.
Click for Ron Paul on other issues.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University
Fred Thompson on Homeland Security
: Sep 20, 2007
Iraq & Afghanistan are central front of global war on terror
Today we face the urgent threat of radical Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is committed to attacking us here at home, and wants to use WMD to kill millions. We must never give them that opportunity. We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in
Iraq and Afghanistan--the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America--or an America that appears weaker--will only encourage further attacks. We must persevere.
Click for Fred Thompson on other issues.
Source: Campaign website, www.Fred08.com, "Issues"
Fred Thompson on War & Peace
: Sep 6, 2007
Success cannot always be measured by battlefield victories
The specter of WMD in the hands of our worst enemies continues to grow, and still we have yet to really come to terms with the nature & extent of the threat we are facing from radical Islamic terrorism. These extremists look at this war as a long struggl
that has been going on for centuries; they are willing to take as long as necessary to bring the US and our allies to our knees, while killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, if possible. Iraq and Afghanistan are current fronts in this war and
the world watches as our will is tested. Our courage as a people must match that of the brave men and women in uniform fighting for us. In this broader war with this different kind of enemy, our success cannot always be measured by battlefield
victories. Success will depend upon the determination of the American people and that's why we'll win. There is a courage that comes in unity. Now is the time to show that America united can overcome any danger, and America united can complete any missio
Click for Fred Thompson on other issues.
Source: Candidacy announcement speech
Newt Gingrich on Homeland Security
: Sep 1, 2007
Contain nuclear threats:China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea
Every day, terrorists try to acquire weapons of mass destruction & weapons of mass murder. Iran & North Korea continue to develop their nuclear and other weapons programs. There is constant danger of a coup by radical Islamists in nuclear-armed Pakistan.
And the greatest danger for us in meeting this threat is the weakness of our intelligence services. We do not have any significant intelligence on the enemy's plans, networks, & troop strength.
Second, we must contain powers that could threaten us,
including China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, & Pakistan--all of which have weapons of mass destruction.
The greatest threat of rogue dictatorships, like Iran or North Korea, is that they will sell weapons of mass destruction. While North
Korea--with nuclear, chemical, & biological weapons--is a big threat to South Korea & Japan, it is a very distant threat to the US. But an Iran or a North Korea willing to sell nuclear and biological weapons to terrorists is very dangerous to America.
Click for Newt Gingrich on other issues.
Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org, "Issues"
Ron Paul on War & Peace
: Aug 5, 2007
Neocons promoted Iraq war for years; not about Al Qaida
I opposed the war a long time before it started. The neoconservatives promoted this war many, many years before it was started. It had nothing to do with Al Qaida. There was no Al Qaida in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Just think of
the weapons the Soviets had in the '60s. We did not have to go to nuclear war with them. There's no reason to go to war against these Third World nations.At the same time, those individuals who predicted these disastrous things to happen if we leave
Iraq are the same ones who said, "As soon as we go in, it will just be duck soup, it'll be over in three months and it won't cost us anything because the oil will pay for it."
The individuals who predict [an Iraq] disaster, predicted the domino
theory, in Vietnam. I served five years in the military in the '60s. When we left there, it was tough, yes. But now we trade with Vietnam. We can achieve much more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars.
Click for Ron Paul on other issues.
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate
Fred Thompson on Homeland Security
: Jun 19, 2007
Western world is in international struggle with jihadists
Many in Europe simply have a different view from that of the United States as to the threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism. They think that the threat is overblown. That despite September 11th and other attacks in Europe and elsewhere,
America is the main target and therefore the problem is basically an American one. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq at a particular point in time resolves the matter for them. Also, they see no meaningful connection between
terrorist groups and countries like Iran. Admittedly, even some in America think that the threat is overblown, and that if we had not gone into Iraq, we'd have no terrorism problem. However, most Americans feel differently. We understand that the
Western world is in an international struggle with jihadists who see this struggle as part of a conflict that has gone on for centuries, and who won't give up until Western countries are brought to their knees. I agree with this view.
Click for Fred Thompson on other issues.
Source: Foreign policy speech at the Policy Exchange in London
John McCain on War & Peace
: Jun 5, 2007
Did not read NIE before war vote, but was fully briefed
Q: Arguably, going to war is the most important decision a member of the Senate can make. Did you read the National Intelligence Estimate, which included all the caveats, on whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? McCAIN:
I did not read that particular document. I received hundreds of briefings, hundreds of hours of study and background and information on it. And the fact is, that the sanctions were breaking down.
Q: Gov.
Gilmore, you chaired the commission on Iraq. Do you think it was appropriate that members of Congress would authorize the president to go to war without reading that NIE?
GILMORE: I think the people who are in
Congress who are responsible for sending this country to war, with the enormous dangers that it has geopolitically and strategically, ought to read at least that kind of material. I know they get a lot of stuff and they can't read everything.
Click for John McCain on other issues.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College
Sam Brownback on War & Peace
: Jun 5, 2007
Did not read NIE before war vote, but had briefings
Q: Arguably, going to war is the most important decision a member of the Senate can make. Did you read the National Intelligence Estimate, which included all the caveats, on whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? BROWNBACK:
I don't remember that report. I had a number of briefings. And I held a number of committee hearings. I was chairing the Middle East Subcommittee on Foreign Relations and we held hearings on this topic and what was taking place and what
Saddam was doing.
Q: Gov. Gilmore, you chaired the commission on Iraq. Do you think it was appropriate that members of Congress would authorize the president to go to war without reading that NIE?
GILMORE: I think the people who are in
Congress who are responsible for sending this country to war, with the enormous dangers that it has geopolitically and strategically, ought to read at least that kind of material. I know they get a lot of stuff and they can't read everything.
Click for Sam Brownback on other issues.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College
Duncan Hunter on War & Peace
: Jun 5, 2007
Read NIE before war vote (then voted for war)
Q: Did you read the National Intelligence Estimate, which included all the caveats, on whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, before the war vote? BROWNBACK: I don't remember that report. I had a number of briefings.
McCAIN:
I did not read that particular document. I received hundreds of briefings and background and information on it.
Q: Gov. Gilmore, you chaired the commission on Iraq. Do you think it was appropriate that members of Congress would authorize the president
to go to war without reading that NIE?
GILMORE: I think the people who are in Congress who are responsible for sending this country to war, with the enormous dangers that it has geopolitically and strategically, ought to read at least that kind of
material. I know they get a lot of stuff and they can't read everything.
HUNTER: I read that NIE report, and I held the briefings before we made the vote to go in. I invited everybody, Democrat and Republican, to get the classified information.
Click for Duncan Hunter on other issues.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College
Mitt Romney on War & Peace
: Jun 5, 2007
Right to invade Iraq, but not what came after
Q: Knowing everything you know right now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq? A: Well, the question is kind of a non sequitur, if you will, or a null set. If Saddam had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found
that there were no WMD, had Saddam not violated UN resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in. But he didn't do those things. I supported the president's decision based on what we knew at that time. I think we were under-prepared and
under-planned for what came after we knocked down Saddam.
Q: But the question was, knowing what you know right now--not what you knew then, what you know right now--was it a mistake?
A: Well, I answered the question by saying it's a non sequitur.
It's a hypothetical that I think is an unreasonable hypothetical. And the answer is, we did what we did; we did the right thing based on what we knew at that time. I think we made mistakes following the collapse of Saddam's government.
Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College
Hillary Clinton on War & Peace
: Jun 3, 2007
Iraq war wouldn't have happened had the inspectors been sent
Q: Do you regret not reading the National Intelligence Estimate before the Iraq war vote? A: I feel like I was totally briefed, I knew all of the arguments that were being made by everyone from all directions. I thought the best way to find out who was
right in the intelligence community was to send in the inspectors. If Bush had allowed the inspectors to finish the job they started, we would have known that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and we would not have gone and invaded Iraq.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College
Mitt Romney on War & Peace
: Jun 3, 2007
FactCheck: Saddam didn't refuse UN inspectors prior to war
Romney tried to pin the blame for the Iraq war on Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow weapons inspections.ROMNEY: If Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no WMDs, had
Saddam Hussein, therefore, not violated UN resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in. But he didn't do those things.
Romney is not alone in playing loose with the facts about weapons inspections. On at least 3 occasions in 2003,
Pres. Bush has made the same claim. However, that the UN's IAEA was not permitted to make inspections might come as a bit of a surprise to Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, who reported on March 17, 2003, that "late last night I was advised by the US
government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad." Inspectors had been in Iraq since November 2002. They remained until the UN Secretary-General ordered their evacuation on March 17, just three days before US and British troops invaded Iraq.
Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College
Joe Biden on War & Peace
: Apr 29, 2007
Vote for war allowed war only after all else failed
Q: Should you have sought out people who had a dissenting view on WMD?A: Oh, I did. I called every intelligence agency before the Foreign Relations Committee, had them all sit there at once. I pointed out to all my colleagues who came that there was
vast disagreement among the intelligence community.
Q: But despite the doubts you heard, you voted for the war.
A: I voted to give the president the authority to avoid a war. We had a more constrictive amendment, but he had 55 votes no matter what.
A: It allowed the president to go to war. It did not authorize him to go to it. You make it sound like it said, "Mr. President, go to war." It said, "Mr
President, don't go to war." It said "go to the United Nations. Try to get a deal. Get the inspectors back in. Tell us that that's what you're about to do. And, Mr. President, if all else fails, you have authority to use force." That's what it said.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series
Joe Biden on War & Peace
: Apr 29, 2007
In 2002 Saddam posed a threat of purchasing a nuclear bomb
Q: In 2002 you said about Saddam: "He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power." A: I was correct about that. I also said at the time that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have these stockpiles everywhere.
A: It turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. What he did with them, who knows?
Q: Gen. Zinni, when he heard the discussion about WMD that
Saddam had, said, "I've never heard that" in any of the briefings he had as head of the Central Command. How could you as a US Senator be so wrong?
A: I wasn't wrong. When asked about aluminum tubes, I said they're for artillery. I don't believe
they're for cascading.
Q: But you said Saddam was a threat.
A: He was a threat.
Q: In what way?
A: If Saddam was left unfettered, with sanctions lifted and billions in his coffers, then he had the ability to purchase a tactical nuclear weapon.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series
Dennis Kucinich on Government Reform
: Apr 26, 2007
Impeach VP Cheney for taking US into Iraq War based on lies
Q: Is anyone on this stage willing to enter into Congressman Kucinich's effort to impeach Vice President Cheney? [none are willing]. That being the response, Congressman, is this a proper use of public congressional time and energy? A: This is a pocke
copy of the Constitution, which I carry with me, because I took an oath to defend the Constitution. This country was taken into war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaida's role with respect to Iraq, which there wasn't one at the
time we went in. I want to state that Mr. Cheney must be held accountable. He is already ginning up a cause for war against Iran. Now, we have to stand for this Constitution. We have to protect & defend this Constitution. And this vice president violated
this Constitution. So I think that while my friends on this stage may not be ready to take this stand, the American people should know that there's at least one person running for president who wants to reconnect America with its highest principles.
Click for Dennis Kucinich on other issues.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC
Hillary Clinton on Principles & Values
: Apr 26, 2007
Biggest mistakes: mishandling healthcare; believing in WMDs
Q What is the most significant political or professional mistake you have made in the past four years? A: Well, I don't have enough time to tell you all the mistakes I've made in the last many years. Certainly, the mistakes I made around
health care were deeply troubling to me and interfered with our ability to get our message out. And, you know, believing the president when he said he would go to the United Nations and put inspectors into Iraq to determine whether they had WMD.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC
John Edwards on War & Peace
: Feb 21, 2007
Wrong on Iraq war vote about WMDs and about Bush's lead-up
Q: Sen. Clinton says she wouldn't vote for the war today, knowing what she knows now, and she made the decision based on the best information at the time; it was a sincere decision. Why isn't that good enough? A: Well, whether it's good enough I think
is between her and her conscience, it's not for me to judge. For me to talk about America being a moral leader in the world again, it was important for me to stand on a foundation of truth. For me the truth was, and still is, that there were two things
that I was concerned about when I cast my vote [for the war]. One was the possibility that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I came to the conclusion that he did, but I was wrong about that. Second, I was concerned about giving George Bush
this authority because I was worried he wouldn't do the things that he needed to do in the lead-up to the war. In hindsight, I should never have given George Bush the authority that I gave him in 2002, and I have to take responsibility for that.
Click for John Edwards on other issues.
Source: 2007 AFSCME Democratic primary debate in Carson City Nevada
Mike Huckabee on War & Peace
: Jan 4, 2007
Make sure we finish the job in Iraq and finish it right
There has been plenty of second-guessing as to whether the US should have invaded Iraq. Regardless of where members of Congress now stand, in the days leading to our invasion of Iraq, there was a consensus from both Democrats & Republicans that Saddam di
have weapons of mass destruction. There was a wholesale belief that he would unhesitatingly use them against the US if he had the opportunity, and would gladly assist terrorists who sought to repeat the horrific attacks of Sep. 11.It may well be that
the intelligence on which the decision was made was incomplete or flawed, but had we failed to topple Saddam's empire and he had utilized WMDs against us, there would have been an even greater anger that we failed to act.
Now that we have gone to
Iraq, one thing is certain--we need to make sure that we finish the job and finish it right. If we were to pull out prematurely and allow tyranny to be restored to that nation, the ripple effect throughout the Middle East and the world would be profound.
Click for Mike Huckabee on other issues.
Source: From Hope to Higher Ground, by Mike Huckabee, p.134-136
Mike Gravel on War & Peace
: Dec 25, 2006
Commence an immediate and orderly withdrawal from Iraq
The Gravel Agenda: When elected President by the American people, I will:- Commence an immediate and orderly withdrawal from Iraq;
- Broker a cease fire in Gaza and the West Bank and promote diplomacy;
- Establish diplomatic relations with
Iran and N. Korea to stop the proliferation of WMD;
- Launch and leading a massive global scientific effort to end energy dependence on oil and integrating the world's scientific community to this task.
Click for Mike Gravel on other issues.
Source: Campaign website, www.gravel2008.us, "Issues"
Hillary Clinton on War & Peace
: Oct 22, 2006
Regrets Bush's handling of war, but not her war vote
Q: You've been critical of Pres. Bush's handling of the war. But you have not apologized for your vote to authorize that action.CLINTON: I regret the way the president used the authority that Congress gave him. I thought it made sense to get inspector
back into Iraq, and backing it up with coercive diplomacy. I was worried that there were residual WMD, and that Saddam could have done something quite irrational. We know now that this administration never intended to let the inspectors do their job and
contain Saddam. I take responsibility for my vote. I regret that we've had strategic blunders and misjudgments. But if we knew then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and there never would have been a war. This president chose that war
and unfortunately, was ill-prepared for what was needed to be done to be successful.
Q: Do you regret voting that way at the time?
CLINTON: I regret the way he used it. I don't believe in do-overs in life. I made the best judgment at the time.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: NY 2006 Senate Debate, moderated by Bill Ritter
John Edwards on War & Peace
: Nov 13, 2005
On voting for Iraq War: "I was wrong"
I was wrong. Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded
Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who
didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.
America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place.
More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.
Click for John Edwards on other issues.
Source: 2008 Speculation: Washington Post editorial, "Right Way"
Barack Obama on War & Peace
: Oct 26, 2004
Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists
It's simply not true that Saddam was providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. This incursion into Iraq has resulted in a situation in which terrorist recruits are up. It's been acknowledged, now, by the Pentagon, that the insurgents active in
Iraq are far higher. Terrorist attacks worldwide are the highest in 20 years. The notion that somehow we're less vulnerable in the US as a consequence of spending 200 billion dollars and sacrificing thousands of lives is simply not borne out by the facts
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: IL Senate Debate
Barack Obama on War & Peace
: Oct 12, 2004
Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran
OBAMA: The Bush administration could not find a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. WMD are not found in Iraq. And so, it is absolutely true that we have a network of terrorists, but it takes a huge leap of logic to suddenly suggest that that means
that we invade Iraq. Saudi Arabia has a whole bunch of terrorists, so have Syria and Iran, and all across the globe. To mount full-scale invasions as a consequence is a bad strategy. It makes more sense for us to focus on those terrorists who are active
to try to roll them up where we have evidence that in fact these countries are being used as staging grounds that would potentially cause us eminent harm, and then we go in. The US has to reserve all military options in facing such an imminent threat-
but we have to do it wisely.KEYES: That's the fallacy, because you did make an argument just then from the wisdom of hindsight, based on conclusions reached now which were not in Bush's hands several months ago when he had to make this decision.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: [Xref Obama] IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network
John Edwards on War & Peace
: Oct 5, 2004
We were attacked by Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein
Q: If Kerry & Edwards had been president & vice president, would Saddam still be in power? A: Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted. Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's why we voted for the resolution. But it also means it needed to be
done the right way. It means that we were prepared; that we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn't take our eye off the ball, which are Al Qaida, Osama bin
Laden, the people who attacked us on 9/11. Now, remember, we went into Afghanistan, which was the right thing to do. But we had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. We had the 10th Mountain Division up in Uzbekistan available. And what did we do?
The Bush administration gave the responsibility of capturing and/or killing bin Laden to Afghan warlords who, just a few weeks before, had been working with bin Laden. Our point in this is not complicated: We were attacked by Al Qaida and bin Laden.
Click for John Edwards on other issues.
Source: Edwards-Cheney debate: 2004 Vice Presidential
Rudy Giuliani on War & Peace
: Aug 30, 2004
The terrorists have heard from us
Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, "They will hear from us." They have heard from us! They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban. They heard from us in Iraq
and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. They heard from us in Libya and without firing a shot Gadhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction. They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists.
Click for Rudy Giuliani on other issues.
Source: 2004 Republican Convention Speech
Rudy Giuliani on War & Peace
: Aug 30, 2004
Liberating the Iraqis is something we should be proud of
Saddam, who supported global terrorism, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people, permitted horrific atrocities against women, and used weapons of mass destruction, was himself a weapon of mass destruction. But the reasons for removing Saddam
were based on issues even broader than just the presence of weapons of mass destruction. To liberate people, give them a chance for accountable, decent government & rid the world of a pillar of support for global terrorism is something for which all thos
involved from Bush to the brave men and women of our armed forces should be proud. Bush has also focused on the correct long-term answer for the violence and hatred emerging from the Middle East. The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the
lack of accountable governments. Rather than trying to grant more freedom, create more income, improve education and basic health care, these governments deflect their own failures by pointing to America and Israel and other external scapegoats.
Click for Rudy Giuliani on other issues.
Source: 2004 Republican Convention Speech
John Edwards on War & Peace
: Jul 28, 2004
Implement 9/11 Report; focus on al Qaeda
We have to do more to fight the war on terrorism and keep the American people safe. We will listen to the wisdom of the September 11 commission. We will lead strong alliances. We will safeguard and secure our weapons of mass destruction.
We will strengthen our homeland security. We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe. We will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaeda and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.
Click for John Edwards on other issues.
Source: Acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention
Barack Obama on Homeland Security
: Jul 12, 2004
Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes
More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia still has more nearly 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough nuclear material to produce 50,000 more. At the current rate of spending, it will take 13 years to secure all the potential bomb
material from the old Soviet Republic. We should increase funding to do it in four years. We must also strengthen the existing Non-Proliferation Treaty, and lead in the efforts to prevent countries with the proven capability to build WMDs from doing so.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: Press Release, "Renewal of American Leadership "
John Edwards on Homeland Security
: Aug 6, 2003
Americans are safer at home when we are respected abroad
A Strong America. Edwards believes that American families are safer at home when we are respected abroad. He will lead by working with our closest allies to solve the world's toughest problems.
He will create a global coalition to fight terrorism and combat weapons of mass destruction, promote democracy and freedom, and revitalize international institutions that make America stronger.
Click for John Edwards on other issues.
Source: Real Solutions For America, campaign booklet by John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich on War & Peace
: Aug 1, 2003
War in Iraq was wrong, and isolated the US
The war in Iraq was wrong. The Administration led America into a war based on false pretenses. There is no credible evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that, according to the Administration, posed an immediate and imminent
threat to our nation and our allies, and could not be eliminated through international weapons inspectors. The Administration has isolated the US from the international community and threatens to make our country less safe not more safe.
Click for Dennis Kucinich on other issues.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.us, "On The Issues"
John Edwards on War & Peace
: Jul 17, 2003
Supported Iraq invasion because of WMD threat
Edwards has not hesitated to support decisive American action, alone if necessary, to address imminent threats to our national security. He supports President Bush's efforts to address the looming danger of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
However, he sharply objects to the Bush administration's handling of our broader foreign policy, which he says projects "arrogance without purpose," instead of the "purpose without arrogance" promised in the President's inaugural address.
Click for John Edwards on other issues.
Source: Campaign website, johnedwards2004.com, "Key Issues"
John Edwards on War & Peace
: Jul 17, 2003
Work with other nations in war on terror
Edwards believes America must lead the world - not by acting alone, but by using our power and influence with other nations to protect our interests. Edwards calls for action to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction, win the war on
terrorism, and promote democracy and freedom internationally, particularly in the Middle East. Edwards believes that through a stronger commitment to work together with other nations, the US will better be in position to shape the world in which we live.
Click for John Edwards on other issues.
Source: Campaign website, johnedwards2004.com, "Key Issues"
Dennis Kucinich on Jobs
: May 17, 2003
Joblessness is a weapon of mass destruction
I ask this administration: "Tell me Mr. Bush, where are those weapons of mass destruction?" I've seen those weapons and I'll tell you where they are. Joblessness is a weapon of mass destruction. Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction.
Hopelessness is a weapon of mass destruction. Let's bring back hope in America. Let's bring back jobs in America. Let's bring back workers' rights in America.
Click for Dennis Kucinich on other issues.
Source: AFSCME union debate in Iowa
Dennis Kucinich on War & Peace
: Sep 14, 2002
No credible evidence for offensive against Iraq
There is no credible evidence linking Iraq with 9/11, with al Qaeda, or with the anthrax attacks. There is no credible evidence that Iraq has usable weapons of mass destruction, the ability to deliver those weapons, or the intention to do so.
Though Iraq possessed and used such weapons years ago, they did so, quite sad to say, with the knowledge of, and sometimes with materials from, the US.
By the way, it's called the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense.
Unilateral action on the part of the US, or in partnership with Great Britain, would for the first time set our nation on the bloodstained path of aggressive war.
Click for Dennis Kucinich on other issues.
Source: Speech at UC-Berkeley, in Prayer for America, p. 58-59
Al Gore on War & Peace
: Oct 11, 2000
Iraq: Support opposition to overthrow Saddam
GORE: We have to keep a weather eye toward Saddam Hussein because he’s taking advantage of this situation [in Israel] to once again make threats and he needs to understand that he’s not only dealing with Israel, he is dealing with us. BUSH: The
coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it’s unraveling, let’s put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don’t know whether he’s developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there’s going to be a consequence, should I be
the president.
Q: You could get him out of there?
BUSH: I’d like to, of course. But it’s going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.
Q: You feel that as a failure of the Clinton administration?
BUSH: I do.
GORE: We have maintained the sanctions. I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Some say they’re too weak to do it. But that’s what they said about those opposing Milosevic in Serbia.
Click for Al Gore on other issues.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University
John McCain on Foreign Policy
: Feb 15, 2000
Overthrow “rogue” governments to keep Americans safe
Q: What area of international policy would you change immediately?
A: Our policies concerning rogue states: Iraq, Libya, North Korea-those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means
to deliver them. I’d institute a policy that I call “rogue state rollback.” I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments.
Click for John McCain on other issues.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show