Breaking Story....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/us.security/index.html

Security chief: Airline terror plot 'close to execution'
Plans reminiscent of an al Qaeda operation, Chertoff says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Terrorists were in the final stages of planning to blow up planes heading from the United Kingdom to the United States, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.

The plans were "suggestive of an al Qaeda plot," he said.

British police said they had arrested 21 suspects in the plot to blow up passenger jets flying between the United Kingdom and the United States.

Police said they were still raiding businesses and homes, and Chertoff said it was unclear if all suspects were in custody.

Chertoff said the plotters were "getting close to the execution phase."

"There were very concrete steps under way to execute all elements of the plan," he said.

Alert levels were raised at U.S. and British airports and air travel across Europe and in the United States faced mass disruptions. (Watch what passengers must do at the world's busiest international airport -- 3:06)

The plot was "intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale," London's Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said.

The plot involved hiding masked liquid explosives and detonators in carry-on luggage, Chertoff said. ('Untold death and destruction' planned -- 2:37)

One government official said the terrorists had hoped to target flights to major airports in New York, Washington and California, all major summer tourist destinations.

Passengers "were not yet sitting on an airplane," but were very close to traveling, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Associated Press.

A U.S. administration official said the terror plot targeted Continental, United, and American Airlines. It was not immediately clear whether other airlines also were involved.

British Home Secretary John Reid said the plotters planned loss of life on "an unprecedented scale."

Chertoff said the plan was reminiscent of a plot by 9/11 coordinator Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who in 1999 had envisioned detonating bombs on 11 airlines possibly traveling over the Pacific Ocean.

The plot was "as sophisticated as any we have seen in recent years as far as terrorism is concerned," Chertoff said.

Britain's threat warning level has been raised to "critical" -- meaning an attack is expected imminently.

The U.S. threat level has been raised to the highest level of "severe," or red, for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States, according to the Department of Homeland Security. (Full story)

In addition, the threat level has been raised to "high," or orange for all commercial flights operating in or coming to the United States, the DHS said.

The nation's overall terror threat level has not been altered.

Thursday was the first time the DHS has raised the threat level for a specific group of flights.

"Due to the nature of the threat revealed by this investigation, we are prohibiting any liquids, including beverages, hair gels, and lotions from being carried on the airplane," a DHS statement said.

While there is no indication of plotting within the United States, Chertoff issued a statement saying "we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted."

That means airline passengers around the country should show up at least two hours early for all flights, an official with the Transportation Security Administration told CNN.

"Travelers should go about their plans confidently, while maintaining vigilance in their surroundings and exercising patience with screening and security officials," Chertoff said.

The terror plot comes almost five years after Briton Richard Reid attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his sneakers on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001, only a few months after the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.

Passengers thwarted his plan, and the plane landed safely in Boston.

Reid pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in October 2002 and is serving a life sentence at the nation's super-maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado.
Security alert follows arrests

British and U.S. security agencies quickly moved to impose strict limits on carry-on items in the wake of Thursday's arrests, causing extended delays at airport security checkpoints. (Full story)

The British Airports Authority said no hand luggage would be allowed onto planes leaving British airports until further notice.

British Airways canceled all short haul flights in or out of Heathrow Airport for Thursday, and delays were stacking flights up at airports across Europe. (Full story)

Stephenson said 21 people were arrested by London, Birmingham and Thames Valley police overnight,but the operation was continuing.

"There's sufficient uncertainty as to whether the British have scooped up everybody," Chertoff said.

"This is about people who are desperate ... who want to do things that no right-minded citizen of this country or any other country would want to tolerate," Stephenson said.

The arrests were the result of a "covert counter-terrorist operation," police said. "It is believed that the aim was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on board the aircraft in hand luggage."

Home Secretary Reid said: "We are doing everything possible to disrupt any other terrorist activity. This will mean major disruptions from all UK airports."

Right on schedule.

What do ya mean, Idiot?

Check back to when the last red alert was Yoss.

"There's sufficient uncertainty..."

That was the real problem, uncertainty wasn't sufficient enough before.

no liquids of anykind will be permitted in the air liner cabin except baby formula that the mother must taste before she is let on board ..............

what if she is BREAST FEEDING ........ how will that be tasted ?????

WONDER IF I COULD GET THE JOB ?????????????//

THIS WOULD BE A VERY PATRIOTIC GESTURE ON MY PART .

Ugh! I am flying out west, next week, to help out some family members. Yikes! Wish me luck!

Remember to leave the baby formula home Checks.

Thank you for not letting me down Id, I was driving into work this afternoon and was figuring you'd have posted something along the conspiracy theory lines. This is all political showmenship. I just can't believe you actually can post it with a straight face.

And I can't believe that Chertoff and Bush can come on TV and talk about it with a straight face.

You thought of me posting something on it cf because you have the same doubts. You’re just hoping you’re wrong, which I am too. The only difference between us is that I’m not willing to keep quiet and just hope. I was stationed in SE Asia in the early 70s and chose not to speak out as well, so I'm not blaming you for anything.

Bush just said the events in London are "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."

What it’s a stark reminder of is that the way we’re fighting the so-called war on terror has absolutely nothing to do with stopping these types of threats. These are homegrown Brits with links to Pakistan, 2 of our allies btw, allegedly trying to blow up planes over the Atlantic.

So tell me cf, how does spending $300 billion and having 130,000 troops in Iraq do a damn thing to stop threats like that? Are we going to invade Pakistan and the UK next to kill all the muslims there as well?

Don't answer that, I'm afraid I already know the answer.

Updated: Oops. Added the word "not" above.

Good thing you asked me not to answer.

I'd have to give my platform away before I'm ready to announce my canidacy for Emperor of the world. I figured I'm a shoe in for having all the answers.

well, you cant kill all of them , so what is the answer to stop terrorism, ? i really dont think there is a way.

I think about one "stark reminder" a week till election time will do the job just fine.

We're not going to stop terrorism any more than we're going to stop tooth decay but we can take the same types of steps to fight it. First we can educate ourselves about it. We know almost nothing about the Arab/Muslim culture and have made no effort to. We can choose the most qualified dentist we can find, not one who happens to wear a certain color coat or goes to the same church as we do. And of course we should question new technology or techniques he plans on using before letting him drill away on our teeth.

Then we should take some responsibility ourselves like we do with brushing and flossing every day instead of just putting all our trust in him and expecting him to protect us. The most important element in our protection is us.

And finally when the dentist is doing a bad job and making mistakes, we get a new dentist. Remember, the dentist works for and answers to us, not the other way around.





A shoe is a good start. Our current emperor has no clothes at all.


Btw cf, please check that post again for an update.

the countries in the middle east have been at war with each other since long before biblical times and they always will be ..............

now the UNITED STATES has joined in their wars and i'm afraid that we too will be at war with one of those contries forever more .

due to my advanced age i dont expect to be affected greatly by this for very long ,,,,, however i have a great concern for my kids and grand kids as well as i do for yours,, for what they might have to go through down the road .......

it really worrys me because i have seen the horrors of war and i dont want it on our lands ,, but it can happen at any time ....

i think that i am a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN and i wish i could totally support my government ,,,,,,, but instead of working together to solve our problems and maybe save our democracy ,,,,, they choose to fight among themselves and one party blames everything on the other ...

who was it who said """ A HOUSE DEVIDED WILL SURELY FALL "" i think we are seeing that now .

GOD HELP US !!!!

Spoken like the man who you said looks like a pig.

Idiot you are so...you know. If it were a political stunt why not before some primary elections that happened earlier that week?

How is learning more about fanatical killers who give me two choices -- "be my type of Muslim or die" -- gonna help. Sounds like more of the "it's our fault they hate us" BS.

I was flying yesterday...great day for that, huh?

They had known about the plot since 2005 and Bush and Blair discussed it last weekend according Tony Snow in yesterday’s gaggle. The political stunt was Cheney calling an unusual press conference right AFTER the Lieberman loss and less than 24 hours before what he knew was going to happen, so that he could rant on and on about how the Lamont win meant that Dems were dissing one of their only Senators who is strong on defense and how that was helping al Qaeda. The funny thing is that in the 2000 VP debate he said just the opposite about Lieberman. If that’s not using terrorism for political gain nothing is. It was right out of Rove 101. Even you can see the benefit of waiting a few days in this case.



It was a Muslim who originally tipped them off to the plot and Muslims in Pakistan who helped by providing info on the suspects, so actually it was Muslims who saved thousands of US and British citizens from another 9/11 disaster. And what did our president do? He immediately came on TV and called Muslims fascists.

This is the beginning of the “new terrorist”. They were born and raised in Britain and had no history of terrorism before W started trying to wipe Muslims off the face of the earth. We’re not going to do a thing to stop them by being in Iraq. All Iraq did was give them the will and incentive to do it.

Funny but I vaguely recall some people predicting that very thing would happen.

So, did you feel a lot safer yesterday?

Come on Idiot, "And what did our president do? He immediately came on TV and called Muslims fascists." I don't think so.

Let me ask you Ud, can you provide a link where anyone has used the phrase Islamic Fascists to describe terrorists since 9/11?

If you really want to scare the hell out of Americans then tell them this: While the British, with the help of Muslims, were saving our @sses, our own government was doing this.



We should all thank God, or Allah whichever you prefer, that it was British Muslims and not American Muslims involved or they probably would have succeeded.

You Bush supporters, if you even bothered to read it, can stick your heads back in the sand now.

everyone knows thats not the first wrong thing these guys has done , ive never seen anything like it , how does these people keep there jobs? they should all be fired , some one with some power needs to step up and bring them to task .

Why? if that's what Bush wants to call the terrorists so be it.

You said that "He immediately came on TV and called Muslims fascists" and that is a load of crap he called the terrorists Islamic fascists.

Why? Because there is no such thing as Islamic fascism or Islamofascism, as the red meat blogs call it. The 2 ideologies are as far apart as they could possible be. The main elements of fascism were described by George Dimitrov in the 1930s. Some of the more notable characteristics are:

Extreme patriotism, Disdain for human rights, Supremacy of the military, Control of the mass media, Obsession with national security, Protection of corporate power at all costs, Rampant cronyism and corruption, Fraudulent elections.

Does that sound like Islam to you? The closest thing to it was Saddam’s Iraq but that was a secular government, not Islamic. Which government today would you say best fits that description?

Did you watch that speech Ud? If you did you may have noticed his awkward pauses, while he searched for some context to frame it in without sounding too ridiculous. Islamic fascism is like Condi’s “pangs of birth” comment a couple weeks ago. They’re more code words in their dog-whistle lingo, intended for only some ears.

Yes, he did call Muslims fascists and I would expect an apology, no forget that, a “clarification” within the next several days. But it doesn’t matter, the wolves were fed

What was wrong with referring to them as "radical Islam" or "Islamic fundamentalists"? Those terms seemed to work pretty well or is that offensive, too?

None of them offend me personally but I believe yours are more correct.

Well, what's up with the new term? Was it just a Bush-ism word jumble or was there some sinister, hidden meaning? <Twilight Zone theme>

On second thought, I see your point. That's what being king is all about. If he wanted to call them sand-niggers I'm sure his loyal subjects would accept that too. In fact, I can't think of anything that they wouldn't accept.

The terms fascism and racism have been linked, incorrectly btw, since the days of Hitler. Aside from being an incorrect description, it was also by design and it quickly became a term for all Germans and not just the Nazis.

To refer to who we're fighting as radical Islamics, militant Islamics, or Islamic Jihadists isn't broad enough for our own little band of neo-nazis. When he calls them fascists what he's really saying is all Muslims everywhere.

Think about it for a minute. If there is no such thing as Islamic fascists, they don't exist anywhere in the world, then the term must either refer to none of them, or all of them. You can interpret it however you want, I'm just telling you how the lunatics interpret it.

And I'm not saying that he really intends to kill all Muslims everwhere, though I'm also not saying he doesn't. The point is he needs to make the loony bin, also called his base, think he does. So whenever he really needs to rally them he pulls out these terms. And if there's ever been a time when he's needed to rally them it's now. Forget everything else, if they don't turn out in Nov it's going to get real ugly for him. Just remember, EVERYTHING he does and says in the next 3 months is done for one purpose.

Btw, it's not a new term, he's used it 3 or 4 times in major speeches during the last year or so, almost since the time his numbers started seriously dropping. The most recent was in discussing Lebanon from the G8 summit. They all have dog whistles but this one has been exclusively reserved for W so far.

On the lighter side...

I normally don't do this, in fact the only time can remember doing it was about a year ago and the SMan gave me grief for it, but this one is just too funny not to pass on.

Warning: The following is a link to Daily kos for those who are afraid of getting cooties or something.

Emily Litella Explains the Raised Terrier Alert!

This is getting bad, it's starting to get to the point that I can't tell the difference between your posts and the crap I read on the far left websites.




That's it just keep repeating it sooner or later everyone will start to believe it.

Hah! I knew you were a closet liberal.

If it makes you feel any better Ud, he doesn't have a clue what a fascist really is.

If you think I got this from a leftie website please show me which one. That shouldn't be too hard to find with a few keyword google searches. The truth is they are just as stupid as the Bush followers.

Hmm... where have I seen something like that happen before?

Saddam, 9/11, Saddam, 9/11, Saddam, 9/11, Saddam, 9/11............

Well at least you're learning something from Bush.

Nah, I learned that from Nixon, or more accurately Kissinger. The same place Bush learned it from.

Since you're going off the deep end this much, this early, as the elections near I predict you'll be banned from here because you can't control yourself. You b*tch so much about Bush's terminology and then you use the "n-word" yourself, trying desperately to throw enough crap to get something to stick. Stick to factual, calm, analytical arguments -- you're far-out enough just doing that. JMO.

You think I care about these elections? Have I been campaigning for any Democratic candidate here? Have I tried to get anyone to not vote for any Republican running this November? If you look back, the last couple times I mentioned Roscoe Bartlett was to praise him. I even started a thread thanking him for speaking out against Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps.

These elections are your fight, not mine. Other than the historical significance they’re meaningless to me. You’ll never get it Snoop. But as usual you took the flame bait.

Why not try to answer my question about how the occupation of Iraq is going to help prevent British citizens from trying to blow up planes full of Americans? I’ll tell you why. Because you can’t.

Why don’t you try to defend the HSD's funneling money AWAY from developing bomb-detection equipment? Because it’s indefensible.

Don’t worry about me Snoopy. I’ll be ok. If I get banned it won’t have anything to do with the pathetic bi-yearly display that Republicans and Democrats alike call political elections. I can assure you of that.

Idiot are we just supposed to give up and become converts to Islam???

History will tell you that in the main Islam was spread by the convert or die docterine. I for one will never give in and I don't think a lot of others would either. The only way out of this dilema is to kill or be killed.

"Kill or be killed." Wow. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the Bush administration hasn't picked that up as a slogan to support the Iraq war.

You want a "way out of this dilemma"? Here's a suggestion, how about we go after the terrorist cells, instead of wasting focusing all of our resources in Iraq? Terrorists are not centralized in Iraq. Obviously they're all over... UK, Afghanistan, etc.

What a novel idea.

In one of the 2004 presidential debates John Kerry said that the most effective way to fight terrorism is with good intelligence and police work and he was ridiculed unmercifully for it. At least in America.

So tell me, how did the British foil this plot? How many soldiers did they use? How many of them had to die?

It appears that someone didn't think it was so ridiculous.

They have. Refer to my earlier comments on Islamic fascists. Did you notice that LL didn't single out any sub-group of Islam? Neither do they.

Now lets be fair, Idiot. If we got wind of a plot like the airliner attack being hatched within this country, the FBI would most certainly do the investigating. They would not send the Marines in to blow up the suspected terrorist's houses. We only do that if the suspected terrorists are plotting in somebody elses country.

Police work is great for investigating threats in our country, but when the terrorists are elsewhere, you're left with relying (for the most part) on the police work of the host countries. What's Pakistan's equivalent to Scotland Yard......Islamabad Yard?

No one can answer your questions to your satisfaction, no matter what. No, I do not agree with some specific ways and means we use or do not use to fight terrorists, or where some money is spent, etc.

But you, Idiot, are the ultimate %$#@#$% because you bash and bash this Iraq war and blame Bush for most every part of it, including insinuating at least once that it was Bush's war "for oil" yet you ignore the FACT that almost every politician of every persuasion said BEFORE Bush was elected that Saddam had WMD's and that we had to act quickly in whatever way necessary to prevent a terrible attack.

So we went into Iraq, and things have not gone according to script (as is often the case in WAR). We are killing terrorists there, thousands of them. And to think a terrorist one one name will not support one of another name with the same goal you are ignorant. And if we cut and run those bastards will see weakness and it will bite us in more ways than we can imagine. So I will not defend every campaign or method or vote, but I will still say that without hindsight it was the right thing to do and for all the turncoats who did a 180 as soon as the going got tough they are all wimpy bastards deserving of NO respect.

JMO.

I think that's already happened. JMO.

From an AP story today: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel to be destroyed." Nice guy.

What will defeat terrorism, or at least reduce the threat and impact of terrorism?

Killing them and pursuing them whenever/wherever we can in an attempt to kill or incarcerate them?

Talking to them, trying to get them to see reason?

Giving them land?

Running away from them and playing isolationist?

I see only the first option. They basicaly say, convert to our brand of Islam or die, those are your choices. I do not like those choices.

Idiot-- If you will read history you will see that we have been fighting Islamic terrorists since Thomas Jefferson's time. The Barbary Coast Pirates said that they were capturing American sailors and selling them into slavery because the Koran told them to do so. CONVERT OR DIE is exactly what this boils down to.

The next attack against US interests should be met with such repraisals as to make the Islamic terrorists more hated than we apparently are. I don't think that the average Lebanese appreciates having his house blown all to hell because of a few terrorists using it for cover. Eventually they will come to resent the terrorists more than the unconverted west.

The area now known as Isreal was occupied by the Jews centuries before Mohammad and his cousin rode across the world converting and /or killing all before them.

If the Muslim Imam's etc. wew interested in peace and good will they issue fatwah's against all terrorists usinf the name of Islam. If their religion is such a great one, why kill anyone that talks about any other religion in areas they control. What are they afraid of?

As far as not singling out any group or sub group of muslims or trying to get them to see reason IDIOT what is the point?

Now where have I heard this before..? Oh, yeah, I remember.

Nice try. Republicans are good at re-writing history but fortunately this time it’s part of the Congressional Record. The following list of congressmen voted NOT to authorize force in regards to Iraq.

Senate 22 – Dems, 1 – Reps, Total=23

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

House of Representatives 126 – Dems, 6 – Reps, 1 – Independent, Total = 133

Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Nea
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

The total congressional NO votes on Joint Resolution 114 to authorize using force in Iraq was 156 out of 535 congressmen. That’s 29% or almost the percentage of people who approve of Bush’s job performance. Or maybe you think that “almost every” person disapproves of the job Bush is doing.

I gotta give them credit on this one though. About 3 out of every 10 congressmen WERE RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ!

Btw, I don't blame Bush for "most every part of it". I blame him for EVERY part of it, and the more he tries to slither away from any responsibility the more I want them to show no mercy when his time comes. And take my word for it, his time will come. I know you don't think so but they thought the same thing about Nixon.

Read it again, Idiot. BEFORE Bush was elected. For example, Senator Robert KKK Byrd was a hawk on Iraq when Clinton was da Prez. Now he's on your list of partisan turncoats.

If most of the politicians thought "that Saddam had WMD's and that we had to act quickly in whatever way necessary to prevent a terrible attack" then why didn't they do something? The Republicans controlled Congress at the time. They're the ones who "technically" are supposed to declare war. Why didn't they do it? Because the sanctions were working that's why.

Oh, and also because they were pre-occupied with Bill Clinton's sex life.

The sanctions were working at doing what?

Generally the Prez orders our military into action, as you know. Clinton was the one preoccupied at...well, you know.

Note how many of these quotes from Dem biggies (these are just a few of those on record) are from BEFORE Bush was Prez:


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there 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."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"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

"[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, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 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."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"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

"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. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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

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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), 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 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

"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

"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

• President Bill Clinton

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
• Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998
"[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too."
• Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
• Remarks at the White House , December 16, 1998

Vice President Al 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; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people."
• Larry King Live, December 16, 1998
"Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen."
• ABC News’ "Special Report,” December 16, 1998
"We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his Country."