Clinton lied in order to justify his attack on Iraq

[JAMJTX]

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

 

[Andrew Green]

Two wrongs still don't make a right...

 

[Jonathan Randall]

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

It is a given, to me at least, that politicians lie and serve special interests. The question to me is; how much damage do they do to the country? Given the spiraling deficits and open-ended commitment in Iraq - Pres. Clinton is starting to look good at the moment (or at least better). This is from someone who thought at the time that he should have resigned over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Not for having an affair, we are all fallible human beings, but for lying about it AND picking an impressionable YOUNG intern who was young enough to be his daughter.

 

[michaeledward]

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Saddam Hussein in January and February of 2003 was not a threat to his neighbors, or the world, with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

So, what is your point?

 

[Bigshadow]

Saddam Hussein in January and February of 2003 was not a threat to his neighbors, or the world, with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

So, what is your point?

I agree with you except for one thing. There is this little country between the mediteranian sea and Jordan that seems to be our "Friends" or "allies" in the middle east. It is they who we protect both then and now. I guess they are considered neighbors of Iraq... :rofl:

In all seriousness, our politicians are not too worried about protecting Jordan, Syria, Turkey, or Iran. All of these are neighbors of Iraq. :rofl:


But other than that, I agree wholeheartedly. And as you said... What is the point of this thread?

 

[OUMoose]

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

The only politicians that don't lie are the ones with 6' of earth on their faces. I'm betting if you look back on the threads from a couple years ago (if they're still around), you'll see Clinton chastised for statements like this.

However, given the current state of affairs in this country, let alone the world, I think he would be the lesser of the 2 evils.

 

[sgtmac_46]

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Yeah, but.....that's Clinton...We're trying to talk about Bush here. Clinton doesn't matter, or anyone else who saw the same evidence Bush did and came to the same conclusion. We're talk about Bush only, and that's all that matters. Anything else is a distraction on our road to demonize Bush....and if their's one thing the left won't be, it's distracted by the facts. The left will forgive any lie, any distortion, any excess....so long as it's done in the name of leftism.

Let me tell you a secret, i've been hitting on this line about Clinton and his fellow democrats seeing the same evidence Bush saw for a couple of years now, and it's been met with stunned silence (see any earlier discussion on the topic). Now, the Dems have gotten some focus groups together, had a little pow wow, sent the issue to some think tanks, and now their talking points machines have been churning out the party response for the first time since the topic began. Let me make a prediction, you will see the determined party response to any question involving the statements of Dems on this topic in the past as being basically to ignore it and change the subject.

"It doesn't matter what ___________ said then, we're talking about Bush, and Bush alone. Why Bush is the issue is <insert equivocating statement here>" *






*(Reprinted here in case someone hasn't checked their e-mail yet and missed their Talking Points memo from the DNC)

 

[BlueDragon1981]

lol....

 

[michaeledward]

Yeah, but.....that's Clinton...We're trying to talk about Bush here. Clinton doesn't matter, or anyone else who saw the same evidence Bush did and came to the same conclusion. We're talk about Bush only, and that's all that matters. Anything else is a distraction on our road to demonize Bush....and if their's one thing the left won't be, it's distracted by the facts. The left will forgive any lie, any distortion, any excess....so long as it's done in the name of leftism.

Let me tell you a secret, i've been hitting on this line about Clinton and his fellow democrats seeing the same evidence Bush saw for a couple of years now, and it's been met with stunned silence (see any earlier discussion on the topic). Now, the Dems have gotten some focus groups together, had a little pow wow, sent the issue to some think tanks, and now their talking points machines have been churning out the party response for the first time since the topic began. Let me make a prediction, you will see the determined party response to any question involving the statements of Dems on this topic in the past as being basically to ignore it and change the subject.

"It doesn't matter what ___________ said then, we're talking about Bush, and Bush alone. Why Bush is the issue is <insert equivocating statement here>" *

Are you talking about December 19, 1998? When Bill Clinton ordered the US Military to target suspected Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological labs and programs in Iraq?

Let's see....

Clinton - 1998 - Iraq had just kicked out the United Nations Weapons inspectors.

Bush - 2003 - United Nations Weapons inspectors had to leave Iraq to avoid Bush's 'Shock and Awe'.

Clinton - 1998 - Attacked by news media of a 'Wag the Dog' campaign to distract attention from a sex scandal.

Bush - 2003 - News media buy tales of 'evil doers' from adminstration officials derived from prisoners who are 'intentionally misleading' them.

Clinton - 1998 - I can't find any references to fatalites from the December attacks.

Bush - 2003 - 2,083 dead as of 11/17/2005. More than 15,000 wounded. No End in sight.

Are these the facts you wish to discuss?

That Clinton's attacks on Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear facilities seemed to have worked. Because 4 years later, UNMOVIC found only a small supply of missles that exceed prescribed ranges by 10%; no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no nuclear weapons, no weapons programs. UNMOVIC discovered and reported this information prior to Bush's folly. UNMOVIC's reports showed that Secretary Powell was selling kool-aid to the United Nations.

After Bush's folly, the Iraq Survey Group, headed first by David Kay found, no weapons of mass destruction, and no weapon programs.

Vice President Cheney said there is "no doubt" that Iraq had these weapons, and could turn them over to al Qaeda. After all, the Vice President TO THIS DAY still believes Mohammed Atta held a meeting in Chekoslovakia with Iraqi Intelligence Officials despite there is no evidence that he travelled out of the country in the supposed time frame, and his phone records show he remained in the United States.

Are these the facts you want to talk about?

Just checkin'

 

[sgtmac_46]

Are you talking about December 19, 1998? When Bill Clinton ordered the US Military to target suspected Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological labs and programs in Iraq?

Let's see....

Clinton - 1998 - Iraq had just kicked out the United Nations Weapons inspectors.

Bush - 2003 - United Nations Weapons inspectors had to leave Iraq to avoid Bush's 'Shock and Awe'.

Clinton - 1998 - Attacked by news media of a 'Wag the Dog' campaign to distract attention from a sex scandal.

Bush - 2003 - News media buy tales of 'evil doers' from adminstration officials derived from prisoners who are 'intentionally misleading' them.

Clinton - 1998 - I can't find any references to fatalites from the December attacks.

Bush - 2003 - 2,083 dead as of 11/17/2005. More than 15,000 wounded. No End in sight.

Are these the facts you wish to discuss?

That Clinton's attacks on Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear facilities seemed to have worked. Because 4 years later, UNMOVIC found only a small supply of missles that exceed prescribed ranges by 10%; no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no nuclear weapons, no weapons programs. UNMOVIC discovered and reported this information prior to Bush's folly. UNMOVIC's reports showed that Secretary Powell was selling kool-aid to the United Nations.

After Bush's folly, the Iraq Survey Group, headed first by David Kay found, no weapons of mass destruction, and no weapon programs.

Vice President Cheney said there is "no doubt" that Iraq had these weapons, and could turn them over to al Qaeda. After all, the Vice President TO THIS DAY still believes Mohammed Atta held a meeting in Chekoslovakia with Iraqi Intelligence Officials despite there is no evidence that he travelled out of the country in the supposed time frame, and his phone records show he remained in the United States.

Are these the facts you want to talk about?

Just checkin'

I see Michael got HIS memo...

No, actually, i'm referring to:

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
http://www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=9035

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

and on and on and on....

Again, it's apparent that the Democrats have an effective way of getting their talking points to their operatives, because I was looking around the web the other day checking on this topic, and the sheer number of sites popping up on google since about two days ago parroting the DNC line is astounding...and they all follow the form letting I mentioned earlier. They also have the very same problem...reality.

The truth is that virtually every intelligence organzation on the planet, including Saddam Hussein's own Generals, believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD in his possession...INCLUDING the above listed Democrats (who have now decided to disregard what they've said earlier). What happened to the WMD is up in the air, but I suspect that, given the amount of time Saddam Hussein had to know we were coming (months) he had plenty of time to destroy any evidence that existed.

That Saddam's forces showed up wearing NBC/MOP gear, and prepared for a Chem/Bio conflict, is evident that Saddam's generals still considered (what you claim is an non-existent) Chem/Bio weapons to be part of their order of battle. Again, there is a systematic agenda to use smoke and mirrors and misdirection in this whole conflict.....it's coming, however, from the left and the DNC.

http://www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=9035
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/29/190708.shtml
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/more/who_lied/

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The question to me is not whether Saddam Hussein had any leftover WMD's; rather it was "was he a threat to the security of the United States and would taking him down make us MORE secure or LESS secure". IMO, anyone who doesn't believe the Admin., with plenty of help from Right Wing pundits, exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq, in the days leading up to the invasion, has not been paying attention.

The other points I'd like to make are that President Clinton attacked Iraq but he did NOT commit U.S. groundtroops to a mission of occupation and secondly that the Democrats in Congress, IMO, put political expediency before principle by authorizing a war they did not truly wish to support. From where I stand, it is hard to tell which was worse; exaggerating the threat posed by another nation in order to launch a war in which you BELIEVED in, or approving a war that you did NOT believe in - then later cursing the ones who launched the attack you approved.

 

[michaeledward]

Of course, all the intelligence the Democrats were seeing was fed to them through the Bush administration and the White House Iraq Group.

Despite claims to the contrary, President Bush had access to much more intelligence information than congress. What congress saw was chosen by the Bush administration. Often, only ranking members of Congressional committees were allowed to see the 'hand-picked' White House intelligence.

And even after all of that ....

It was George Walker Bush that invaded a sovereign country that we now know, he knew, posed no threat to the United States of America, or its allies.

 

[Cthulhu]

A politician...lied?

*GASP*

Cthulhu

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Of course, all the intelligence the Democrats were seeing was fed to them through the Bush administration and the White House Iraq Group.

I'm sorry, Michael, but as much I am angry at this Administration, I cannot buy this Democratic ALIBI. The only pre-war intelligence I had before the invasion came via a dial-up internet connection - and the Open Source stuff I got was enough to convince me that an invasion would ultimately be contrary to the interests of the United States and that the threat posed by Saddam was grossly exaggerated, both by careful selection and some outright fabrications.

No, in my view, the Democrats supported it NOT because intelligence was witheld, rather their positions were largely based upon COLD POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I am not going to say the Pres Clinton did not lie nor will I say the same about Pres Bush.

What I will say is that, they both had infomration that the US and other countries had sold them weapons and capabilities back in the 80's that put them into the Chemical weapon world. Also with the fall of the Soviet Union and some missing Nuke War heads, people could assume the worse.

Heck I know how sensitive the military was about Chem and Bio weapons back in ODS. So, I think people were acting on old information and fears.

Not argueing either side of being present or which party lied more or less, just expressing my opinion.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Of course, all the intelligence the Democrats were seeing was fed to them through the Bush administration and the White House Iraq Group.

Despite claims to the contrary, President Bush had access to much more intelligence information than congress. What congress saw was chosen by the Bush administration. Often, only ranking members of Congressional committees were allowed to see the 'hand-picked' White House intelligence.

And even after all of that ....

It was George Walker Bush that invaded a sovereign country that we now know, he knew, posed no threat to the United States of America, or its allies.

Hardly the case, as several of the above listed congressman were on the Senate intelligence committee.

 

[michaeledward]

Hardly the case, as several of the above listed congressman were on the Senate intelligence committee.

It is 'Hardly the case' that George Walker Bush invaded a sovereign country that posed no threat the United States or its allies?

When did Senators achieve the rank of Commander-in-Chief?

 

[sgtmac_46]

It is 'Hardly the case' that George Walker Bush invaded a sovereign country that posed no threat the United States or its allies?

When did Senators achieve the rank of Commander-in-Chief?

The Commander-in-Chief is the head of ONE branch of government, not all three...Senators and Representatives control another equally powerful branch. Again, two branches of government were in agreement on this issue before, now one branch wants to hide and change the subject.

Congress began hyping the evidence against Iraq long before the President. They made it clear that their opinion was that Saddam was an "imminent threat" (Rockefeller's words, not Bush's). Now they want to have it both ways? I don't think so.

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources--something that is not that difficult in the current world. We should also remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction . . . But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East..." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (Dem) Vice Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee

Sen. Rockefeller would be hardpressed to claim he didn't have access to the "latest intelligence" as Vice Chairmant of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Nice try, though.

http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/002916.html#more

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/315wepic.asp

 

[michaeledward]

The Commander-in-Chief is the head of ONE branch of government, not all three...Senators and Representatives control another equally powerful branch. Again, two branches of government were in agreement on this issue before, now one branch wants to hide and change the subject.

Agreement ....??

So the President requested Congress Declare War on Iraq, as prescribed in the Constitution, and Congress authorized a Declaration of War?

That's not the way I remember it.

I thought the President said he needed their authorization so that he could use all the tools available to him to persue peace.

But, maybe that's just me.

2,083 dead United States soldiers in Iraq .... and Congress sent them there.... got it.

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Agreement ....??

So the President requested Congress Declare War on Iraq, as prescribed in the Constitution, and Congress authorized a Declaration of War?

That's not the way I remember it.

I thought the President said he needed their authorization so that he could use all the tools available to him to persue peace.

But, maybe that's just me.

2,083 dead United States soldiers in Iraq .... and Congress sent them there.... got it.

I'm always amazed when we start throwing around "2,083 dead" as if it is astronomical figure. The issue is whether or not the goal was justified. If it was justified, 10,000 dead doesn't change that fact, if it was not justified, 1 death was too much.

The "2,083 dead" issue is a bit of a red-herring, used strictly for emotional effect, and as such doesn't really add anything to the logical debate over justification.

What's more, however, it is clear what the members of congress wanted, including many Democratic leaders. I quoted several of them. They, not Bush, declared Saddam Hussein an "imminent threat". Now they want to say they didn't come to that conclusion? or that it doesn't matter that they declared Saddam Hussein an "imminent threat" in 2001, 2002, and 2003? That many of them did so long before George Bush had decided that, what THEY called an "imminent threat" needed to be dealt with militarily?

Again, i'm not surprised you want to change the subject. With the conclusions you want to come to, and the reality of what REALLY happened being far different, i'd change the subject if I were you too.