http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html -- Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. President Bill Clinton, 12/16/1998
Isnt it absolutely hilarious that: For as Sh!tty as a president Clinton was For as wrong as he always was For as immoral as he was For being such a terrible president. When it comes to certain comments made 8 years ago, suddenly his word is the gospel. See the difference is basso. When Clinton was "wagging the dog". He bombed strategic points. And MANAGED to keep Saddam in check. Unless your going to argue NOW that Saddam did in fact have WMDs or was linked to 9-11. When Bush wagged the dog, he cost us billions in tax payers dollars, set us apart from our longtime allies in the world, moved against the UN, invaded a sovereign country based on misguided and abused intelligence, took away our civil liberties (patriot act), allowed for torture of anyone based on nothing, and allowed them no council, and cost us the lives of 2000 of our future.
Yep those strikes worked and what little was left it took care of, according to Kaye's report. Notice how Bill used the appropriate amount of force and didn't tie up American forces needed elsewhere by going on a full scale invasion. Notice how at the end of Clinton's actions the WMD's were gone Good job Bill. Back to the topic at hand. What Bill did or said in no way changes the fact that congress did not see all the same intel as Bush. You have already won the point that Bill and other nations also thought there were WMD's. There is no argument there. The argument centers around whether the opposition in congress had all the same intel and information about the reliability of that information as Bush did. And a seperate argument would be given the intel were the actions taken by Bush the right ones.
The legislature, known as Congress, creates and passes legislation - such as the Patriot Act. The President then can either sign it or veto it. See 'I'm Just A Bill.' I think 'nothing' is a slight exaggeration.
Liberals, how hard is this to understand? Seriously. UN weapons inspectors created a list of WMD that Saddam had after the Persian Gulf War. Saddam boots the inspectors out of his country and then mysteriously is unable to account for the previously-accounted for WMD. ARE WE SUPPOSED TO SIMPLY LEAVE IT AT THAT? BELIEVE THE MURDEROUS TYRANT? Is that really the best way to defend the United States, particularly in the wake of 9-11? This is why both sides of the aisle voted overwhelmingly to oust Saddam. It's that simple. Of course, after the fact, the liberals try to take ownership of the 'WMD were never there" issue, which is both irrelevant and untrue. The onus was on Saddam to account for his WMD. He didn't. He was uncooperative. End of story. Invade. The mere fact that we had to look for them is proof positive that Saddam wasn't complying with the agreement in place. Of course, all the liberals are capable of now is twisting and distorting the series of events that led up to war. They have hit rock bottom and their only way up is to lie. The issues obviously are working against them. They figure if they tell enough lies that go uncontested, some will stick. It's a shame that they have to attempt to undermine the war in the process and put US troops at greater danger with their efforts.
I don't feel silenced at all, actually if anything i'm voicing my opposition louder than ever before. Liberals, Liberals, Liberals, Liberals, Liberals, LOL.
Several important problems with your logic. First, the UN weapons inspectors that you speak of WERE IN IRAQ before the war started with unconditional access. David Kay, the head inspector, was set to give a report stating Iraq had NO WEAPONS. Second, even if you are correct, your logic doesn't make any sense. So we should also take action against Iran? North Korea? Brazil kicked out IAEA inspectors a few years ago over nuclear technology. You want to invade them? How about India and Pakistan both of which haven't given the IAEA full authority to inspect? I'd say Iran and North Korea probably are greater threats to the US. I was in favor of the invasion if we had greater international support. France and Germany both were on record of saying that they would give support on condition of the UN weapons inspectors' report on WMD that wouldve come out in days if we hadn't gone to war. There were no weapons so there wouldn't have been international support but at least we could've waited. Of course, after the fact, the people like you try to spin the issues as well. The onus is on Brazil, North Korea, and Iran as well to account for their programs. Oh wait they didn't. And I quote you.. "End of story. Invade." So you better start posting in favor of invading those countries. It's a shame that you have to resort to generalized name calling and scapegoating without actually justifying your argument. Your only offensive argumentation attacks the credibility of "liberals" without actually answering anyone's arguments.
A murderous tyrant could be hellish honest. I don't think that should be the rationale for invasion. Saddam was our boy. Admit it. We never establish a link. Not even to this date. Emotions were running high after 9/11, and we need to find an easy target. It's that simple. Well if you want to convict someone on a specific crime, say possessing an illegal object, what do you do? Find the evidence! You can't charge the guy for being ambiguous about it, if he had reasons for not telling the whole truth. The burden of proof is on you.
The problems you mentioned about WMD were being dealt with. There were inspectors on the ground with all the access needed to determine there were no WMD's, but Bush didn't give them the time they wanted. It is that simple. It had nothing to do with believing Saddam, it had to do with the entity whose agreements Saddam had signed and was said to be in violation of dealing with that. Instead the U.S. (an entity that Saddam did not have those agreements with) stepped in instead of letting the UN deal with the violations or non-violations. Is that how cheap lives are to you? Is that how cheap the lives of our troops are to you? Rather than give the inspectors the time they needed to conclude there were no WMD's it was better to ahead and invade and turn Iraq into a terrorist training ground? We have yet to see any proof that speaking out against the war put US troops in greater danger. It certainly didn't put them in greater danger than starting a pre-emptive unnecessary war did. I am going to ask you to quit making assertions which are direct insults to patriotic war protestors without providing proof. In other words put up or shut up with these types of attacks.
To be fair in this case Saddam did agree to account for it, and didn't. The burden of proof was - by agreement - on him.
Didn't Scott Ritter say Saddam had no WMD by late '90s? BTW, how do you prove you don't have something?
12 years wasn't enough time for Saddam to comply? The countless UN resolutions weren't enough to get Saddam to comply? It's amazing how the liberals RUSH TO THE DEFENSE of Saddam Hussein, and give him far more credibility than the President of the United States. Just amazing. Really makes you question whose side they are on in this conflict. As a leader, you must make decisions. You can't wait around for another 12 years and another 20 UN resolutions. You definitely don't allow France and Germany (wow, there are two great histories of good war judgments...) to dictate your foreign policy. Bush and Congress decided to act in our nation's best interest by taking out Saddam. If Saddam wasn't going to comply, then we were going to force his hand. We did. We didn't let the anti-war peaceniks made the decision. We didn't let the French decide, nor the Germans. We let John Kerry decide. And Ted Kennedy. And the rest of Congress. And they voted to invade. Saddam was a destabilizing cancer in the Middle East. After 9-11, tensions were high and the need to make a dramatic sea change in the Middle East was necessary.
Just to point out the facts as they stand now. No WMD has been found in Iraq therefore as the facts stand now Saddam was correct and GW Bush was wrong, as was a lot of other people. The fact that no WMD has been found is impartial as all sides substantially agree on that fact. Its not saying Saddam is in general anymore credible than GW Bush except on this one issue he so far has been vindicated.
Give up arguing with him... no one's convincing anyone. We're all supporters of islamofascist thugs who want to kill or enslave us all and he's the defender of freedom and truth that is the solution to the world's problems.
If that had been what was actually happening then maybe we would have been right to go in. But that isn't what was happening. There were inspectors on the ground, and they were doing their job. Nobody was waiting action was being taken. You are presenting false options here. The options you present are 1. Invade and occupy Iraq 100. Do nothing. You left all the other options that were currently going on. You also failed to address the point that Saddam was breaking no agreements with the U.S. He was breaking agreements with the UN. Therefore final say should go to the UN.
