Did you forget?

Question

take a look at the following website. It contains text from a Clinton speech. Did the media convince you to forget that this was an issue before Bush took office?

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

Answer 1

Thank you, I've been trying to tell people this was already underway before Bush took office. Therefore, Bush was in no way tampering with evidence to make it look like Saddam had WMD's. This policy was continued from the last administration's. "Blame Bush" is just something that was started by the Liberals. They figure, since they can't have their way, they will blame him for it.

Answer 2

I agree with JD, the way in which Clinton proposed and Bush ultimately dealt with Iraq is very different. It is a valid point, however, that other nations suspecting of building similar arsenals were not/are not targeted by the U.S. One reason being that Iraq and the U.S. have a history of animosity (you can speculate that another reason has to do with Iraq's access to and the U.S.'s love for oil).

Also, timing is everything. Clinton made this comments at a point where Iraq was refusing to cooperate with UN inspectors. Bush made his decision despite UN inspectors stating that Iraq did not have a nuclear/WMD arsenal.

You can't blame the news media...especially with its current predominantly Right- bias.

Answer 3

Thank you for posting that.

And to answer 3D Farms' question, "Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years." That's Clinton talking.

To JD's answer: We're not the ones destroying their infrastructure and have not since the invasion was complete. The Iraqis and external terrorist organizations are destroying the infrastructure we are trying to help rebuild (albeit via no-bid contracts :/ ) and have been for the last 2-3 years. If you think anti-western sentiments are something new, wake up! Islamic extremists have been calling for the death and destruction if "infidels" for centuries.

Answer 4

No, not at all. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the region in the early 1990s. Air strikes and sanctions, however, are a very different thing than a 4-year ground war and occupation.

The destruction of the country's infrastructure and occupation fueled anti-western sentiments, and the removal of Hussein and the initial disbanding of the Iraq army led to a power vacuum that makes establishing a democracy there nearly impossible at this point.

Answer 5

I'm so glad you pointed it out. The media makes it's money on creating "buzz" around any topic they can. They want to get our emotions in a bunch so they have more to report on. Otherwise they'd be out of business.

This issue was around during Clinton's term, but as we all know, Clinton was a good face man who offered us very little. He chose to ride it out and let it be someone else's problem. Sadly this is a common theme in both politics and corporate America.

Kudos to you for bringing it up.

Answer 6

Wasn't real happy with Clinton's Bosnia plan either, but I'm less enthused by billions in no-bid contracts for rebuilding Iraq to personal special interests of the president.

Answer 7

Nope!

Answer 8

white washing in the media nothing new

Answer 9

No, I haven't forgotten. Too bad the media has.

Answer 10

Not for one min , but Clinton DIDN'T go to war , did he and commit our troops . Did he say that Iraq had WOMD .