Our task, your task… is to try to connect the dots before something happens. People say, ‘Well, where’s the smoking gun?’ Well, we don’t want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction.
We’re all sick of holy wars and bloodshed because religion is supposed to give us life and a better life and is supposed to bring out our best self. When it results in mass destruction and hatred and anxiety, it’s the antithesis I think of what religion was designed to do.
There were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein was not involved in the September 11th attack.
The experience in Iraq has taken away the essential trust which political leaders need before embarking on military action. It was meant to be about weapons of mass destruction rather than regime change. Unfortunately, the nation was misled, and secret service information was misused.
The Internet definitely could be a weapon of mass destruction – it’s not going to come in a bomb, it’s going to come as a cyberattack. It’s pretty amazing to see what a small group of people can do if they really know how to control the universe.
You’ve probably been asked to care about things like HIV/AIDS or T.B. or measles, but diarrhea kills more children than all those three things put together. It’s a very potent weapon of mass destruction.
The possibility that terrorist groups could obtain weapons of mass destruction should not be dismissed as a fiction. This is a horrific threat the international community should take seriously. As long as these weapons exist, so, too, does the risk of their use – by accident or design.
Just as the Security Council was largely irrelevant to the great struggle of the last half of the twentieth century – freedom against Communism – so too it is largely on the sidelines in our contemporary struggles against international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
People ask me all the time, ‘What keeps you up at night?’ And I say, ‘Spicy Mexican food, weapons of mass destruction, and cyber attacks.’
On the issues that I care deeply about – the environment, Roe vs. Wade, the war in Iraq, with no weapons of mass destruction, the tax cuts that are now leading to deficits, I’ve got some deep issues with the president.
We should seek international support for our mutual objectives abroad, in promoting freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, and also the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.
We shall continue to work for a Middle East that is free of strife and violence, living in harmony without the threat of terrorism or the dangers of weapons of mass destruction.
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.
Certainly, we have to make sure our police forces do not have weapons of mass destruction with which they can terrorize our communities.
I was interested in implements of mass destruction – from an academic point of view.
Terrorists have already attacked our Nation once. There is every reason to believe that they will try again – possibly with a weapon of mass destruction; a weapon that could be smuggled into our ports.
Tony Blair took us to war in Iraq on the basis of the supposed threat of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.
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.
Saddam’s goal is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.
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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
I said in October of 2008 that there was no proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or had the intention or capability of attacking the United States. Here we are. Almost 4,700 troops died, tens of thousands injured, over a million Iraqis dead. It will cost $5 trillion in the end for the war.
The alliance should agree… to an effective NATO role against the new threats presented by international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of a mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
Iran rejects weapons of mass destruction based on its belief system, its religious belief system, as well as well as its ethical standpoint.
Throughout our courtship, Kenny told me that he had proof that Saddam Hussein was a threat because he possessed weapons of mass destruction. I told him, ‘You had me at weapons.’
We insist that the international community cannot depend on any country with weapons of mass destruction which has relations with terrorists, and which allows itself the luxury of not respecting the law and of defying the international community.
Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction.
Number one, that it is smart to communicate and negotiate with your enemy instead of just waging war with bombs and weapons of mass destruction.
The products built in the factories of G.M., Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps.
I grew up in Los Alamos, New Mexico, which is my hometown. In Los Alamos is, for people who don’t know, a nuclear lab that built the atomic bomb. The only reason the town exists is to make nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and that’s still happening there.
And like I say, I think we’ve got other cases other than Iraq. I do not think the problem of global proliferation of weapons technology of mass destruction is going to go away, and that’s why I think it is an urgent issue.
One of the most important post-9/11 efforts made to counter terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction is President Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
No one should be surprised when Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the United States. I don’t believe in inevitability. But I think it’s pretty close to being inevitable.
John Austin, author of ‘Cubicle Warfare,’ has outdone himself with ‘Mini Weapons of Mass Destruction,’ a fully illustrated step-by-step guide to constructing thirty-five pocket-sized war machines, including a Clothespin Shooter, a Hanger Slingshot, a Paper-Clip Trebuchet, and Shoelace Darts.
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
I can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t think the world is safer without a tyrant who murdered his own people, used weapons of mass destruction against them and flouted the world for so many years.
If Bush, as I believe, has reliable information on the fact that Saddam Hussein is making weapons of mass destruction, I cannot not support the policies of his government.
We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to account for his weapons of mass destruction, consistently violated UN resolutions and in a post-9/11 world no American president could afford to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt.
If terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.
We have these weapons of mass destruction on every street corner, and they’re called donuts, cheeseburgers, French fries, potato chips, junk food. Our kids are living on a junk food diet.
Well, what I’ve said is that the war in Iraq will always be clouded by how it began, which was a wrong premise, that there were in fact no weapons of nuclear – weapons of mass destruction.
The rapid dissemination of technology and information offers entirely new ways of production, but it can also bring the spectre of more states developing weapons of mass destruction.
On the justification for the war, it wasn’t related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction.
I’m not concerned about weapons of mass destruction.
If the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
There is an enormous amount of evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, is doing his best to develop more lethal weapons, and funds and supports terrorism.
But I want to just caution, it is not incumbent on the United States to prove that Saddam Hussein is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He’s already demonstrated that he’s trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Carl took on the military-industrial complex. He campaigned around the world for an end to the production of weapons of mass destruction. To him it was a perversion of science.
