Whats up with Bush and WMD's and Iraq?

Question

I'm afraid your right Bill Clinton was the first to coin the word WMD's and Iraq in the same sentence. It happened on December 16, 1998 in his address to the nation on operation "Desert Fox" Quote From Bill Clinton:

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. End Quote

If you would like to watch it follow the link below to CNN and see Bill say it in his own words.

Sorry everyone but the truth hurts sometimes

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

Answer 1

both dems. and cons. are one and the same... so it does not surprise me...

Answer 2

Sure he SAID this, Bush also said he wanted Osama bin Laden "Dead or Alive". And why was Bush listening to such a "liar" in the first place? Or was Bill Clinton trustworthy after all, and we should vote Ms Clinton into the White House, so we can again have someone trustworthy in the Oval Office?

I'll bet THAT truth hurt.....

The FACT is, attacks on Iraq's "WMDs" NEVER revealed the presense of nuclear weapons in Iraq. No radiation counter has ever done more than hiccup anywhere IN Iraq, so there goes the theory they HAD nukes but moved them somewhere else (like another country would TAKE nuclear material to make Saddam Hussein look good) before the invasion.

10 years later, Bush was still beating the "nuculer weapons" wardrums to justify invading Iraq, an invasion he had had in mind since assuming the Oval Office. No one, NOT ONCE, ever denied Hussein had and used chemical weapons on his own people. Tear gas to disperse demonstrators is ALSO considered a "Chemical Attack (or Response)", so let's not be pendantic here. We know for a FACT Hussein had them, because the Reagan administration SOLD him the capability of doing just that, to "protect" an ally from the Ayatollah in Iran.

It wasn't until Bush started his "Saddam has nukes" talk that the American people were being lied to.

The "truth" certainly hurt Colin Powell, he went on "Meet the Press" a couple months ago to reveal to the US, that the alleged presence of nuclear weapons or fissible material in Iraq was never conclusively ascertained prior to invading, in fact, many in the President's staff were ignoring ANY intel which supported the no nukes position, and fast tracking any rumor or hint of a rumor there WAS uranium in Iraq.

Which time was Colin Powell telling the truth, at the UN briefing where he showed the world Iraqi aluminum tubes and mobile labs, or when he was on "Meet the Press" saying the whole thing was hogwash?

Speaking of which, since uranium is radioactive, why did they not just task a few NORAD satellites to PINPOINT the alleged uranium stores in the deserts of Iraq? Radioactivity can not be completely suppressed around uranium, or many of its "by products", so it should (and would) show up on NEST trackers clear as day, wouldn't it?

They had a minor accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station in the 70s, and a fair amount of radioactive steam was released into the atmosphere. Geiger counters were registering elevated radioactivity as far away as Eastern Russia. You're seriously trying to tell people a bunch of Iraqis were able to transport nukes out of the country and leave absolutely NO trace?

And what country in its right mind would ACCEPT Saddam's leaky bombs? Knowing it would be a guarantee of American invasion? Can you name ONE buddy he had in the entire Middle East region who would be willing to take that kind of risk for Hussein?

No thanks, I've bought enough bridges the last 7 years to be able to swallow THAT fish story.

Answer 3

The two situations are completely different. In 1998, Saddam was preventing the UN weapons inspectors from doing their job in Iraq. Clinton's attacks completely destroyed Saddam's remaining capacity to create wmd's. He was successful.

In 2003, the weapons inspectors weren't being obstructed by Saddam at all. As a matter of fact, he was completely open with them. They knew that there wasn't any capacity left. Bush didn't listen and wanted the war. He was a failure.

Answer 4

That's right, and he took out the last of the WMDs missed by Bush Sr. so when Clinton's Administration was done all the WMDs were destroyed or useless.

Answer 5

Changing the subject, though, aren't we? Typical right-wing strategy. The question is not whether Clinton thought there were WMDs in Iraq (you can't assume everyone who opposes Bush is a fanatical democrat). Nor is the question whether Clinton's actions were justified in Iraq. We could discuss these issues, but they are entirely separate from the issue that occupy us today, and that question is: Was Bush justified in pushing for, and going to war in Iraq?

And my answer to that question is no, regardless of what Clinton did or did not do.

Answer 6

As your article points out, President Clinton took care of business, and he saw to it that Iraq no longer had any weapons of mass destruction.

When bush stepped into the White House he just grasped at the first buried bone he could find, in order to take America to war so he could put huge bucks into the pockets of his greedy republican pals.

In other words, long before bush was appointed as president, by the supreme court, "Mission was Accomplished!".

.

Answer 7

Clinton clearly stated that Iraq was contained.

Answer 8

To my knowledge, Clinton wasn't operating with information from weapons inspectors that there were no WMD's.

Answer 9

Early in the Iraq war, we DID find evidence of an old weapons factory. How soon everyone forgets! The weapons themselves are in Syria now. I wonder if we'll ever look there?

Answer 10

Bush is about to have a news conference in an hour or two.

Make some popcorn and get ready for some knee slapping, belly holding comedy.

Answer 11

WAG the dddddddDOG!!!!!! VOTE 4the cable man GETTER DONE