Canada Believes Saddam Had WMD

The moral being that fools, liars and propagandists cover the globe.

The alleged terrorists have had all those W.M.D.s for all this time, many deteriorating through age, yet continue to use none.

The Canadians weren't the ONLY ones who believed it:

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMDs and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998: "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 WMD program."

- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998: "What happens in (Iraq) matters a great deal here. For the risks 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."

- Letter to Clinton signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, etc., Oct. 9, 1998: "We urge you ... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs."

- Congressman (now House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998: "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."

- Sen. Bob Graham and other Democratic senators in a letter to President Bush, Dec. 5, 2001: "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status."

- Sen. Levin, Sept. 19, 2002: "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building WMDs and the means of delivering them."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002: "We know that (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMDs."

- Sen. Robert Byrd, Oct. 3, 2002: "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. Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002: "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 WMDs in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002: "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-Qaida 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. Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003: "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."

Canada also supports gay marriage.

Interesting they can be so right about one thing and wrong about another thing.

Ummm, exsqueeze me? That ahzweepay Martin and fekwod Chretien do not speak for all Canadians. How long Martin will last remains to be seen.

Martin is full of it.

Since Martin is an unelected Prime Minister, it's a bit of a stretch to say "Canada" or "Canadians" based on anything he says.

As cav has noted, we'll see what happens when an election comes up. If that canoe quote gets play, he'll be vaporized.

I do think that this ... is spot on.

Certainly, the intelligence reports that are being released suggest that there is significantly more terrorism activity now than there was before 9-11.

Ther was a Canadian guy who came on a talk show in Philadelphia and said that Canada is waiting to invade the US and topple our government ,and replace the present government with a sort of parliamentary shaamagarchy. My onlly question is , would I have to go around saying eh? and hoser?

Nah farmerman, we'll just force you to eat endless amounts of poutine.

and gyros.


we all know how much farmerman LOVES gyros.

I do, as a matter of fact dislike any Greek food. Is a gyro actually Greek? or is it just lathe turned roadkill?

farmerman, the authentic Greek gyro can be distinguished from the roadkill by the lack of flies on the carcass.

ok, you failed to be explicit as to which of the two does not contain the flies.

Okay, LESS flies then...

Is this what amounts to debate in A2K?

Someone posts a report of what is a significant story, if for no other reason than those who, in general, oppose the war have been telling us no one else in the world believed Saddam had WMDs, and it is met with

Martin is a fool, a propagandist and/or a liar

A non sequitur concerning gay marriage

Martin is "full of it"

Martin doesn't speak for all Canadians

Martin is somehow a faux Prime Minister

For anyone who might have been led by these comments to think otherwise, Paul Martin is the leader of The Liberal Party in Canada, which adds additional significance to the report.

All sorts of interesting questions can arise from this story and (even) the thin responses thus far:

What does it mean to be a Liberal in Canada? Martin seized the reigns of the Liberals with something like 93% of the voting members of his party. One would then have to assume that even if Martin somehow doesn't represent Canadians who identify themselves as Liberals, he most certainly represents those who constitute the institutional Liberal Party.

Are Canadian Liberals so disconnected to their political party?

What does it mean to be a Liberal anywhere in the world? Do Liberals reveal themselves to be imposters or traitors if they happen to agree with the current American Administration?

Considering that Paul Martin as PM of Canada is privy to a lot more of the world's secrets than (presumably) anyone on this thread, why should we not take his speech as a indication that perhaps the American Administration was right about Iraqi WMDs? after all, this is the head of The Liberal Party. This isn't some neo-fascist crook in Italy or Spain. This isn't some bootlicker in England. Or is it? Perhaps those who have such disdain for Martin might like to share with us why he is a "liar," or "full of it."

Martin, indeed, doesn't speak for all Canadians, but then neither does Chirac speak for all French, nor Schroeder speak for all Germans, and yet so many have been willing to view them as the personifications of their countries. He most certainly doesn't speak for Conservative Canadians, they have their own guy. If he doesn't speak for Liberal Canadians and he doesn't speak for Conservative Canadians, who does he speak for, and how the hell did he manage to control 93% of his party's votes?

Debate on threads suffer when someone simply posts excerpts from articles without offering a point of contention with which posters can engage. Perhaps a point of contention or a question has now been provided that will draw out true discourse, rather than banal one liners.

Well, Finn, Martin didn't exactly sieze the reigns, he was appointed, much like Lyndon Johnson.

"Martin, indeed, doesn't speak for all Canadians, but then neither does Chirac speak for all French, nor Schroeder speak for all Germans, and yet so many have been willing to view them as the personifications of their countries. He most certainly doesn't speak for Conservative Canadians, they have their own guy. If he doesn't speak for Liberal Canadians and he doesn't speak for Conservative Canadians, who does he speak for, and how the hell did he manage to control 93% of his party's votes?"

Well, those are questions we Canadians are still trying to answer.

"What does it mean to be a Liberal anywhere in the world? Do Liberals reveal themselves to be imposters or traitors if they happen to agree with the current American Administration?"

That is a loaded question, and doesn't really deserve a reply. Some liberals (your words) do agree with the current administration. The terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are so nebulous these days to not even warrant attention.

As for the gay marriage issue, it was a non-sequitor, but I'm happy to live in a country that supports it.

As for Saddam's WMD's, well let's hope Syria or Saudi Arabia are next on the hit list, I'm sure they are hidden there.

I supported the war on Afghanistan. I actually endorsed invading Iraq, at first. I changed my mind.

Cavfancier said "As for Saddam's WMD's, well let's hope Syria or Saudi Arabia are next on the hit list, I'm sure they are hidden there."

At least it keeps the administration's acquisitive minds off Canada.

I'm truly glad you enjoyed the cover-up John.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. It seems to me to be a very logical question. Paul Martin is the head of The Liberal Party (Canada's term, not mine), and yet when he is referenced on A2K as being in agreement with a contention (WMDs in Iraq) which has given liberals (progessives, leftists, non-conservatives, even saints - take your pick) fits he receives a lambasting by A2K posters who are routinely associated with "liberal" positions.

Much the same happened in forums like A2K when Christopher Hinchen had the audacity to take on Noam Chomsky after 9/11, or when Thomas Friedman came out in favor of the war in Iraq. Both were labeled, not liberals, but sellouts and hacks, by their progressive brethern. Interestingly enough, both have been working overtime of late to get back into the good graces of the Left.