1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by rvolkin, Jan 9, 2004.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. rvolkin

    rvolkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

    Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

    "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

    Clinton, a Democrat who left office in 2001, met with Durao Barroso on October 21 when he travelled to Lisbon to give a speech on globalization.

    The US justified going to war against Iraq last year citing the threat posed by Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction.

    Republican President George W. Bush used Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes and Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism as the main case to the United Nations for the US-led war against Iraq.

    But since the US occupation of Iraq, American forces have failed to uncover any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons since the war. Hundreds of experts are still scouring Iraq in the hunt.

    An influential Washington think-tank said Thursday the Bush administration "systematically" inflated the threat from Iraq's weapons programmes in a bid to strengthen its push for military action against Iraq last year.

    In its report, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also said it was unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or moved out of the country hundreds of weapons of mass destruction without Washington detecting some sign of activity.


    http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html
     
    #1 rvolkin, Jan 9, 2004
  2. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,622
    Likes Received:
    6,591
    Clinton is doing his best to undermine the Howard Dean candidacy with these remarks. Clinton knows that Dean's election in the primaries spells certain doom for the party.

    So who do you believe liberals?

    Clinton, Bush, intelligence agencies, weapons inspectors (they generated the list in the first place that Saddam could not account for)

    or

    Saddam


    The liberals argument looks more ridiculous by the day!
     
    #2 El_Conquistador, Jan 9, 2004
  3. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,896
    Likes Received:
    20,679
    I find great humor in TJ being a Dean expert.
     
    #3 No Worries, Jan 9, 2004
  4. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    119
    I find great humor in TJ, period!
     
    #4 RocketMan Tex, Jan 9, 2004
  5. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,134
    Likes Received:
    10,181
    I find great humor in Republicans running to Clinton as a justification for the war. Implicit in these frequent cites is the idea that Clinton would have done things just as Bush did, which is a crock.
     
    #5 rimrocker, Jan 9, 2004
  6. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    The aim is to quiet the reckless critics. How do you know what's implicit and how do you know what Clinton would/would not have done?
     
    #6 giddyup, Jan 9, 2004
  7. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,896
    Likes Received:
    20,679
    The aim is damage control.
     
    #7 No Worries, Jan 9, 2004
  8. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    Clinton would not have made such a diplomatic SNAFU of this whole affair.
     
    #8 bnb, Jan 9, 2004
  9. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,896
    Likes Received:
    20,679
    This also obfuscates the issue. The pre-war questions wrt Iraq's WMD were on extent and on Saddam's intent. Very few people pre-war thought Iraq was WMD free.

    GWB made it sound like that the WMDs were on every street corner, that the UN weapons inspectors were incompetent boobs, and that Saddam had his finger on the trigger. These assetions were the foundations that we used to strike Iraq "preemptively". These assertions have shown be wild overstatements and should be addressed by GWB. I am not holding my breath.
     
    #9 No Worries, Jan 9, 2004
  10. mrpaige

    mrpaige Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2000
    Messages:
    8,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    While I agree that Clinton would not have handled the situation the same way, noting that Clinton believed that Iraq had WMDs does work against this argument that Bush knew that Iraq did not have WMDs and made the whole thing up in order to go to war.

    Clearly the intelligence that was there before Bush took office pointed toward Iraq having these WMDs. It didn't take people from the Bush administration inventing it, as some claim is the case (now, they veery well might've inflated the intelligence claims, but they could not have invented it).
     
    #10 mrpaige, Jan 9, 2004
  11. TraJ

    TraJ Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 1999
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    2
    Mr. Paige,

    How dare you get the point! :)
     
    #11 TraJ, Jan 9, 2004
  12. rvolkin

    rvolkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner.
     
    #12 rvolkin, Jan 9, 2004
  13. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    But who is saying Iraq *never* had WMD or didn't have *any* WMD? Seriously. :confused:

    This whole discussion is so stale by now, but we should at least be fair to one another semantically. The argument is that the *extent* and the capability of the Iraq program and our knowledge of its current status were intentionally distorted in the build up to war. (More than an argument, it looks like an absolute fact if you follow the trail of quotations, statements, and aftermath, but I believe that some people trust the administration to have known some scary classified facts that led them to act).
     
    #13 B-Bob, Jan 9, 2004
  14. rvolkin

    rvolkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question isnt *never*, the question is immediatly preceding the war. And it doest take long to look down the Clutch BBS to find several examples of this. Also, most recently, the Carnagie Melon study that was on every news outlet for the past couple days.

    Ooooohhhh, so its OK to have a few WMD but not a lot? I must have misunderstood .:rolleyes:
     
    #14 rvolkin, Jan 9, 2004
  15. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    Uh oh, B-Bob got the *rolleyes* - :eek:

    FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!



    :)
     
    #15 KingCheetah, Jan 9, 2004
  16. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,795
    Likes Received:
    41,233
    After becoming accustomed to hearing Clinton blamed for everything from flouride in the water to 9/11, I find it facinating to see him raised up to "demi-god" status by some of our more conservative posters because of a few remarks he made about Saddam and wmd's. How deep did some of you have to dig not to choke on using Clinton "in a positive way" to support Bush. Really trying to reach here, aren't you?
     
    #16 Deckard, Jan 9, 2004
  17. ima_drummer2k

    ima_drummer2k Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    36,425
    Likes Received:
    9,373
    We finally agree on something. :)
     
    #17 ima_drummer2k, Jan 9, 2004
  18. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    imadrum, I think we agree on a suprising number of things, at least in spirit.

    And kingcheetah, I get the roll-eyes a lot. It's a flirtation, yes, sort of like a wink? That's what I've always assumed. Failing that, I thought it meant that my argument was over someone's head, and their eyes were tracking its flight.

    By the way, did you see the news about one of your fellow cats munching on those mountain bikers? :eek: What is up with you cats? :D
     
    #18 B-Bob, Jan 9, 2004
  19. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,896
    Likes Received:
    20,679
    Yes it is OK to have a few as long as they are not nukulur.
     
    #19 No Worries, Jan 9, 2004
  20. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,790
    Likes Received:
    3,708
    But I thought Clinton couldn't be trusted, so conservatives using him as validation after knocking down his creditability for 8 years is laughable. Anyway

    So if Clinton can be trusted on this, then admit you were wrong about him. If not, then his statements should mean nothing to you.
     
    #20 pgabriel, Jan 9, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page