To: American Spirit who wrote (96019 ) 4/23/2007 5:15:04 PM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976 Then George Tenet, Kenneth Pollack (who worked in the NSC during the Clinton adm), the Clintons, and the Democratic controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, and most of the Democrats in Congress were telling the same lie.Message 23369689 Kenneth Pollack wrote The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq in 2002. This book was discussed thoroughly on the FADG thread back when Faultline was active. I have a copy of it around somewhere. It convinced me personally we should invade Iraq. From 1988 - 1995, Pollack was a CIA analyst on Iraqi and Iranian military issues. Later in the Clinton administration, he worked for the NSC as director for Near East and South Asian Affairs and director for Persian Gulf Affairs. On pages 173-175, he said there was a consensus that Iraq has an active nuclear program; it employed as many as 14,000 workers; and Iraq might be able to build a bomb as early as 2004. ........Richard Clarke is on the record as saying Iraq and AQ were allied to produce WMD's: Iraq conspired with Bin Laden to produce WMDs...according to Richard Clarke Washington Post ...... (Excerpted from "Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says; Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden; Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism," Vernon Loeb, Washington Post, A02, January 23, 1999.) www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103455/posts .............. Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk' Says Bush didn't solicit Rumsfeld, Powell on going to war Monday, April 19, 2004 Posted: 9:34 AM EDT (1334 GMT) Bob Woodward's new book offers a revealing, behind-the-scenes look at the run-up to war. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward. www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/ I could have pointed out above that the Clinton administration even included the Saddam WMD agreement with AQ in their indictment of Osama bin Ladin. The above are some of the facts explaining why most Democratic Congressmen voted for the war resolution in the fall of 2002. Of course, facts don't matter much to simple-minded leftwingers like you. The funny thing is if one thinks about it a little, it is easy to tell that if Bush had left Saddam in power, you and other liberals would be condemning him for that right now. There was all that intelligence from the Clinton era which said Saddam's WMD threat was very dire. Plus there was the support and shelter Saddam gave to terrorists who'd attacked America. And you'd be arguing that leaving Saddam in power meant the "genocidal" sanctions would have had to be continued and that you liberals would claim is creating more terrorists.