Can anyone correctly answer why this article about Clinton/WMDs in Iraq has nothing to do with the current war

Question

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

This article says that in 1998, Clinton acknowledged that Iraq had WMDs. Can anyone accurately tell me why this has nothing to do with the current Iraq War? I can tell you right now that it doesn't, but many people claim it does, or that "Clinton agreed with Bush that Iraq had WMDs" or "See, Clinton lied too".

Can you tell me why these statements don't make sense? If you ask nicely, I will tell you.

Answer 1

Do you not remember when clinton bombed that aspirin factory and killed the janitor?????

He had all those weapons in his pocket at the time and good ole slick got em.

Then all the democrats made fools of themselves and said he still had them, until they said he didn't have them and well someone had them and now I am confused from all this liberal way of thinking.

Answer 2

Clinton could only believe this to be the case since there was the scandal where the Iraqis had gassed their own people.

Then, of course, the President doesn't have anything to work with but what is fed to him by his intelligence services.

Bush and his cronies acted with full knowledge of the fact that most in the intelligence circles didn't believe the Iraqis had such capabilities. They massaged the reports to make them read what they wanted them to.

Clinton didn't have the motives that drove Bush, Cheyney, Wolfowitz and others who determined to go with "regime change" where it's clear Clinton would have opted for diplomacy.

Answer 3

Because it was in 1998 and according to Hillary Clinton, Hussein got rid of all his weapons after the attack but before 2005 when she changed her stance on the Iraq war.

Answer 4

Because there are nonetheless hundreds of Americans in Iraq to educate Iraqi army group of workers. So, despite the fact that the organizations with major fight missions have left the nation, there is nonetheless the likelihood of American deaths. The struggle is not particularly over...simply the fight aspect of it has ended for us.

Answer 5

Clinton expressed concern but did not exhibit rash behaviour and invade Iraq. He sought to continue to contain Hussein, militarily and economically.

Bush mislead the US public by having spokespersons and cabinent officials promote the "imminent danger" (Mushroom clouds anyone?) which was patently untrue...

Answer 6

Because liberals are always right and if you agree with them you are always wrong, they are either insane or intellectaully dishonest.

I said that also so the left is attacking Bush for supporting their views. It is clearly insanity on their part and is not cureable.

Answer 7

CNN is not a reliable source for anything factual.

Answer 8

so their both wrong