Was Clinton lying about Saddam and his WMD's when he said:
His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
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."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
2007-01-02 05:24:42 · 17 answers · asked by Abu 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clearly, he was relaying the facts as they had been provided to him. He believed it to be true, and so do I.
Interesting how conveniently the democrats have forgotten this.
2007-01-02 05:27:37 · answer #1 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No, he was not lying. He however never said Iraq had WMD's. What Clinton was asking for was continued pressure on Saddam and his regime. If the nation became isolationalist then the treat Saddam posed would only increase. Not only was a dialog with Iraq needed but also a watchdog and a long stick.
Clinton was making sure that it was understood that Saddam would not hesitate to rebuild his arsenal if given the chance. But he never once said his arsenal was rebuilt nor did he state that he had WMD's in his possession.
2007-01-02 13:39:13 · answer #2 · answered by dquestic 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Were Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice lying when, a few months before 9/11, they both said that Saddam Hussein was not a threat, he had no WMDs and that he was contained?
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
If this is true, how come a year or two later Saddam suddenly became a big and iminent threat - was someone sleeping on the job?
2007-01-02 13:33:10 · answer #3 · answered by Cardinal Fang 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was telling the truth for once. Why did George Bush act? After 911 it was time to apply the use of the BIG STICK to those that posed a threat to the U.S., Israel & all of the world for that matter. Afganistan & the Taliban & Alqieda were the first objective. Irag was a close second. Saddam needed to go regardless of the fact that he had WMDs. I could care less if he did. He was without a doubt a threat to the world. It should have been done after the first Gulf War. Unlike most I think both represented us well. Our country showed extreme patience & only attacked when it was obvious Saddam was not going to comply with U.N. demands. He wanted to play games & we were not in the mood to play anymore.
2007-01-02 13:27:19 · answer #4 · answered by GJfromfla 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Clinton lied about Able Danger and 9/11.
2007-01-02 13:28:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on your interpretation of the word "lying". For Democrats:
If Clinton siad it, he was mislead.
If President Bush said the exact same thing, it's lying
2007-01-02 13:30:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Clinton could not have lied because he did not state any facts. He projected about the future, just as cheney projected that we would be greeted as liberators and rumsfeld projected that the war would be over in weeks not months or years.
What clinton DID NOT DO is put american and Iraqi lives at risk with an ill-concieved war of choice. He did not put American lives on the line to test his theories, as Bush did.
2007-01-02 13:29:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
That may have been one of the few times Clinton actually told the truth.
2007-01-02 13:33:08 · answer #8 · answered by goodtimefriend 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, he wasn't lying, he believed what we all believed. He was just as wrong as Bush is now. At least Bush had the courage to act. Billy boy's brains were occupied south of the border.
2007-01-02 13:28:35 · answer #9 · answered by Firespider 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Clinton lied about many things. He was right about Saddam but too busy partying to do anything about it. Now we blame Bush.
Integrity was not on Clintons list of personality traits.
2007-01-02 13:29:29 · answer #10 · answered by sm4125 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋