Why do the uneducated and misinformed continue to whine that Bush lied about WMD's where theres proof ?

Question

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

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.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

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.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

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.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.


QUICK VOTE
Was Saddam Hussein trying to take advantage of the political turmoil in the U.S.?
Yes
No

View Results



VIDEO
Clinton says attack on Iraq averted potential Iraqi aggression (12-17-98) Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K

For Clinton, a long day of political juggling (12-17-98) Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K

Larry King Live highlight: Vice President Al Gore on the military air strike on Iraq (12-17-98) Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K

Clinton statement on attack against Iraq (12-16-98) Windows Media: 28K | 56K



TRANSCRIPTS
Clinton defends U.S. attack on Iraq (12-17-98)


President Clinton explains Iraq strike (12-16-98)




POLL
U.S. public endorses Clinton's actions on Iraq (12-17-98)




RELATED STORIES
Blasts over Baghdad during second night of attack (12-17-98)

U.S. boosts Gulf strength (12-17-98)

World reaction mixed; Russia, China harshly criticize U.S. (12-17-98)

House passes resolution in support of U.S. troops (12-17-98)


Impeachment and Iraq fill the president's time (12-17-98)


In-depth: Strike on Iraq


MESSAGE BOARD
Your opinion: Iraq vs. the U.N.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MORE STORIES:

Answer 1

Simply BECAUSE they are uneducated and misinformed. They think that by repeating the liberal talking points on here that they are sounding like they know what they are talking about...but in reality they look foolish and they are too dumb to notice.

Answer 2

Reading that transcript only serves to remind me how articulate Clinton was and Bush isn't.

It requires less involvement to conduct targeted strikes against military sites than it does to carry out an occupation.
We've spent nearly half a trillion dollars and for what? Yeah Saddam is gone, but what kind of stability does the country have? Iraq is the Islamic radicals new training ground like the mujahideen coming out of Afghanistan.

Answer 3

We will see the proof when Syria launches them in the upcoming war with Israel,after that Damascus goes up in smoke via a Israeli response

Isa 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
a prophecy that has yet to be full filled

Answer 4

So, back in the mid-1990s, Clinton thought Saddam might have WMDs, becuase Saddam refused to allow inspectors.

How is that proof that Saddam actually did have them? Or that he still had them 5-10 years later?

And even if we assume your comparison is valid and that your facts are correct, it's the equivalent of convicting someone because they plead the 5th. Attacking Saddam because he refused to allow inspections is attacking him based on a belief he may be hiding something.

That's not proof, by any twisted definition of the word.

Answer 5

Are you saying that because Clinton said it it's true?

Technically he said that Saddam had weopons programs, not weopons. That could be simply labs trying to develop arms. But I think Clinton too was misinformed by zealous assistants who know how wars make a president's approval ratings soar (at first). I don't know a whole lot about that strike because I was 13, but I don't think it was necessarily right. At least Clinton didn't stay for four years after declaring the mission was accomplished.

Answer 6

do you know what proof is... because you're not citing any....

your citing stories from the late 90s... that were clearly wrong... EVEN IF CLINTON WAS SAYING IT...

see... proof is WHAT YOU NEED to back up a claim like "Saddam has WMD"... without any evidence, it looks like a lie....

you don't need proof not to believe something.... go back and read what you said....

here is an example, since you clearly don't have a clue...

it's like if I said "there is a 10-ft. monser behind you and he's about to kill you"... and you look behind you and say... "I don't see anything"... and I say "prove it to me there isn't a monser behind you"....

see how stupid that sounds... you're asking someone to disprove something that doesn't exist?

shouldn't the burden of proof be on the person making the accusation?

and you're calling us uneducated? you clearly have no clue what the word "proof" means...

Answer 7

You could write an entire book, and it still would not be "proof" of anything. Clinton ordered strikes on Iraq simply because of their failure to cooperate with UN inspectors. This raised suspicions that they were hiding something, but is not "proof" that the WMD's existed then or existed at all.

"Proof" to me would be our finding the WMD's and bringing them back to America, putting them on public display for the world to see that we were right.

Where is THAT "proof"??

Answer 8

ummmmm Like.....there's several years differance between Clinto ordering that bombing and Bush invading. Iraq had.....repeat had a chemical weapons program.......and the used chemical weapons.......by the time Bush invaded Iraq had dismantled its program. And There are no sites where Chemical or Nuclear weapons have been found. Big....big...Huge!!!!! Difference

Answer 9

Why is it statistically true that the average Republican voter has more years of education than Democrats?

Is it because you can lead you uneducated masses into believing any crap you throw there way.

"Your life would be better if your benefit checks were higher," "the government owes you health care", "the government cares more about wars than your well-being"

What is wrong with wanting the citizens in the best society that our world has even know to stand on their own two feet, to take pride in what they have worked for, and what they are working towards.

Nobody appreciates anything if is given to them.

Answer 10

He did lie.

He said, dozens of times, that there were WMD's.

The ONLY thing that was found was a single chemical missle.

You can post **** 10x as long as that and it's still not going to change the facts.


You're experiencing what us educated psychologists call "denial". It has many stages and you'll probably experience them all before you're done.

Answer 11

Haha! I remember when we were calling that Wag the Dog when we Republicans were against it!