Clinton - degrade Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction...?

Question

Remember this?

Iraq attacked in 'Operation Desert Fox'
December 16, 1998

BAGHDAD (CNN) -- A second round of explosions were seen and heard over Baghdad at 2:30 a.m. Thursday. The activity occurred shortly after U.S. President Bill Clinton announced he had ordered a "strong, sustained" series of airstrikes on military and security forces in Iraq, designed to degrade Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction.
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/

Were there no WMD's then either or did they just POOF disappear?

g – so did LOTS of democrats: What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD - http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

Answer 1

I love how Liberals conveniently forget that practically all major world leaders: Russia (and you know their spy network is first rate!), France, Germany, etc. all had solid evidence of Saddam's weapons. All Saddam had to do was produce a list of what was done with the weapons and he could have avoided the invasion.

He didn't produce such a list, because he couldn't.

Instead, he moved his weapons to Syria.

Here is my theory: didn't it seem strange to you that, practically the first thing Nancy Pelosi did after being named Speaker of the House was to race over to Syria? Doesn't she have more pressing concerns here? Her behavior isn't just extremely unusual, it's quite suspicious.

Pelosi knows that if Bush negotiates with Syria to disclose where Saddam hid his weapons, the Republicans can win '08. It would totally tip the scales. With her newfound power, she is trying to stop this. I believe her real reason for visiting Syria was to make a separate deal with Syrian President, Bashar al-Asad.

Right now, the '08 election might hinge on whether Bush or Pelosi was more successful in negotiating with the Syrians. Let's hope that al-Asad realizes the advantages of dealing with a straight talker like Bush.

Answer 2

Don't ever doubt that the WMD's exist if you do and become complacent the time will come soon enough that they will re-appear......over a hundred thousand kurds buried alive in one day....thousands killed with chemicals and so on etc etc etc etc now these things are being supplied back from where they had plenty of time to hide them such as Iran Syria etc........presidents - monarchy - politicians - and senators etc have lied since time began they have to do this to get people "on side" ..............BUT sometimes they are telling the truth.........and something has to be done eh!!!!

Answer 3

well... if Clinton either destoryed them or convinced Saddam to destroy them to stop an invastion in 1998... there could very easily be no evidence left by the 2003 invasion... that's like 5 years...

so... I guess we'll never know?

they could have easily been destroyed in the bombing or by Saddam... five years is much different than "poof"

all we know for sure is that there weren't any there in 2003 when we went in... which Bush said there was...

EDIT: just because democrats said anything... it doesn't make Bush right automatically... they could all very well be wrong... but he made the final decision to attack and thus the responsibility rests with him...

they gave him the authority to start the war, that he asked for, but they didn't start the war... the decision was left up to him alone

the only way you could blame dems is to say "they should have never been stupid enough to trust him with the authority".... which could be a good point actually...

Answer 4

neither of them lied. Iraq had WMD's. The special forces found 3 trucks that were used to haul nuclear and biological material into Syria prior to the invasion.

Answer 5

Giving them a long warning that we were coming gave them time to move them all to other countries etc. Of course they had WMD, everyone who really thinks knows they did.

What is more disturbing is the large number of Russian weapons missing that have been sold on the blackmarket.

Answer 6

http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes

You get it! All in "peacetime". Thousands died, including our service personnel. But who's counting those numbers (NY Sun Heroes & Cowards)? Iraq is not just Bush's war. It's been around for awhile. But does anyone consider the facts during the typical propaganda machine airplay of this particular Presidential election season? You get two for one no matter how you try to separate them. WMD's ?? Inspectors arrived only after previous warning notice. Iran has been harboring and sending supplies. See yesterdays news? Afganistan? Pakistan?
Reports of cyanide were given by the first surge of soldier's into Iraq. A roadside bomb is a WMD, #1 cause of casualties and injuries.
Thank you so much. It is encouraging to see people researching the facts. Not everyone can have the wool pulled over their head. Amen.

Answer 7

Two wrongs do not make a right. In this case - Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are the two wrongs. Neither does Clinton's actions exonerate GWB from the fact that he cherry picked intelligence data to make the official 'reason' palatable.

Answer 8

Maybe the airstrikes worked? Cuz there sure aren't any weapons of mass destruction laying around now! Not every President we've ever had has been as militarily inept as our current one.

Answer 9

Was there an invasion of Iraq in 1998?

No,there wasn't.

And apparently the attacks worked.Iraq didn't have any WMD's in 2003.

Answer 10

You are ONE LUCKY son of a gun !!!
I got suspended 2 months ago (with in 10 minuets) for asking this same question !!!
NOW, because of that, YOU GET A STAR !!!!
I regret that I can award you only one star.
Your repertory says it all.