Bush cooked the intelligence report about Iraq's WMD's?

Question

Will the glorious left please enlighten us with their moveon.org laced answers on the explaination of this Are these the same WMD's or did Clintoon divert attention from his fat girl fondling antics with a false report

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Answer 1

Andy, YOU ARE ONE DANGEROUS "DUDE" !!!!!!
Here you post A recorded evidence of the a FEW of the shortcomings of THE Clinton Presidential Legacy, for everyone to see, view, study !!!!
Rest well and continue on, my friend, for soon the Lefty's will turn you in for being offensive (to their agenda) !!!
toro gringo

Answer 2

But that's not the truth, that's simply more opinion. It doesn't matter who OK'd that report, the fact is that there was very little doubt expressed by the CIA about these at the time. Look at the Congressional Records. People, you need to realize that what this is is a transparent attempt to re-write history. It's 1984 Ministry of Truth stuff.

Answer 3

Oh gee, look at what that crazy left-wing, chicken-hearted President Clinton did after he made those statements:

Iraqi cooperation with UN weapons inspection teams was questioned on several occasions during the 1990s. UNSCOM chief weapons inspector Richard Butler withdrew his team from Iraq in November 1998 because of Iraq's lack of cooperation. The team returned in December.[3] Butler prepared a report for the UN Security Council afterwards in which he expressed dissatisfaction with the level of compliance [6]. The same month, US President Bill Clinton authorized air strikes on government targets and military facilities. Air strikes against military facilities and alleged WMD sites continued into 2002.

_______________________________________

Ah, but Clinton knew better than to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He would never be crazy enough to invade a country without solid evidence because he must have realized the humanitarian implications and the negative political fallout possible around the world.

You see, using the pressure of the U.N. community and selective strikes against well-chosen targets is a smart way to go. You always want a community with you when dealing with a bully like Saddam.

But "macho men" like Bush, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly think they can rule the world with their will. They are bullies too!

Perhaps Bush should just appoint himself King of Iraq after he leaves office? It is the only role he plays really well.

Answer 4

.Typical left wing crap! If there where no weapons of mass destruction then Saddam would have let the inspectors do there job .But that didn't happen they where told where they could and could not go .There where 56 areas they weren't allowed in at all . And are worthless President (Clinton)would not do any thing to in force the sanctions Giving Saddam not months but years to hide and remove WMDs. Which He did .If Clinton wasn't such a Coward and would have in forced the sanctions guess what they would have found ?

Answer 5

Doubtful, to much evidence of questionable action on the part of Iraq and the UN inspection teams before he became president. 9-11 required a response from us.
At this point and time, we now have to do our best, with regard to the Iraq war. It's time to focus the energy spent on blaming and channel it to a victory.
Lest we forget, these people did not know freedom nor trust.
If they can not trust us to be what we say we are, what good are we?

Answer 6

And Carter never gutted the CIA. And, and, Reagan never sold WMD technology to Saddam... And Clinton was ALWAYS ever vigilant and supportive of the U.N. Weapons Inspection teams. The first chief inspector NEVER resigned in absolute disgust over the vast amount of support he was receiving...
AND of course, last but certainly not least none of (and I DO mean NONE of) the democrats in Congress voted to go to war.

Answer 7

Why is not enough for those on the left to accept the fact that we went into Iraq simply because of the potential for Saddam having WMD's, not because we knew exactly where and how much there was. Saddam was playing high-risk poker with Bush and he bluffed one time to many and Bush rightfully called his hand. The probability that Saddam still had WMD's was too high to continue risking the chance he still had them and to continue enabling him by allowing his cat and mouse game to continue. Bush's mistake was somehow letting those on the other side paint him into a corner on this issue so that he suffered when WMD factories were not found in operation after the invasion, instead of being respected for making the decision to go in and find out the actual truth.

Answer 8

This answer has been given so many times. I guess you are determined not to understand it but we will try one last time.
Between 1998 and 2003 a lot of things happened. Crippling sanctions were in place. Inspections were severely limiting programs. Targeted strikes were taking out these programs (strikes that your boys in congress opposed remember). ie Clinton's program of containment WORKED.
Bush and co knew all of this so they had to invent aluminum tube centrifuges and unranium from Niger.
Right so now we have brought you up to where everyone else was 3-4 years ago perhaps we can move on.

Answer 9

The armchair generals always want to second guess the one that is in the know, the Commander in Chief.

I still think nerve gas is a WMD. However, if the dems didn't pick WMD, they would have found something else wrong.

They are diligent in trying to discredit Bush.

Even to the point, The Emmy's!!!! Liberal T.V. couldn't even let the Emmy's go by without anti war crap.

Answer 10

The Libs always try to make you forget this one clear, undeniable fact. The story of WMDs in Iraq began years before Bush took office. It began with the Clinton administration.