Terms of Use

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#169387 - Sun Apr 27 2003 02:42 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
DieHard Offline

Registered: Wed Oct 10 2001
Posts: 1127
Loc: Louisiana USA
Dakota, I know you are a big fan of Bill Clinton and since you don't trust Dubya perhaps you will consider Clinton's view of Iraqi WMD. As you will see, he knew Hussein had them, he just lacked the moral strength and intestinal fortitude to do anything about it.

First, from a May 10, 2002 briefing by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix (no fan of Bush)

"Although no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were used by Iraq during the Gulf War, their existence in Iraq is well known."

Even Clinton agreed Saddam had to go:Ultimately, neither inspections nor sanctions get to the core of the problem, which is the nature of the Iraqi regime. At his November 15 press conference, President Clinton identified the only solution: installing a new regime in Baghdad that has democratic legitimacy and respects human rights. From the “New Republic” Dec 7, 1998

Or how about this from Clinton:
(Outlines U.S. policy for the Middle East, No. Africa, South Asia)

January 11, 2000

Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 successfully degraded the threat posed by Iraqi WMD in the wake of Baghdad's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. In December 1999, the United Nations Security Council passed UNSCR 1284, a new omnibus resolution on Iraq. The United States supports Resolution 1284 because it buttresses the containment of Iraq. This resolution reflects the consensus view of the Security Council that Iraq has still not met its obligations to the international community and, in particular, has failed to disband fully its proscribed WMD programs.

Clinton drew the line in the sand, Bush is carrying out the policy Clinton initiated
The Clinton administration is expressing fresh worries that Iraq - after a year without United Nations weapons inspections - may have resumed its illicit arms-development programs.
"Saddam Hussein has shown no hesitation in developing WMD in the past, and it is prudent to assume that he is still intent on such development," says the report, a copy of which was obtained by the Monitor. The report was sent to Congress Aug. 25 as required by a 1999 spending bill.
Any attempt by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to "reconstitute" prohibited weapons programs would cross one of several "red lines" for US military action set by President Clinton following Anglo-American airstrikes on Iraq last December.
Apparently, if you disagree with Clinton he supports invading your country and forcing you to live under our laws. Who is worse, Clinton or Hitler?

From a 1999 letter from Congress to Bill Clinton , co-signed by Democrats Joe Lieberman and John Kerry:
If international security could be assured by waiting until we find evidence that Saddam- has developed weapons of mass destruction and responding to the threat at that time, there would have been no need for Operation Desert Fox.

On a side note, this interesting letter to Clinton signed by some who are now in the current administration.
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. - FDR

#169388 - Sun Apr 27 2003 03:04 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
DakotaNorth Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Tue Jul 10 2001
Posts: 6168
Loc: Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
DieHard, thank you for the information about regarding Former President Bill Clinton's view on Iraq.

You are correct in that I am a big fan of Clinton's and that I don't trust Bush. I must say that if Clinton said it, then I have to believe it.

However, maybe the reason that Clinton didn't invade and conquer Iraq, was not because he lacked the intestinal fortitude, but that he didn't have clear and concise proof that Iraq had WMD.
“In a world where you can be anything, be yourself.”

#169389 - Sun Apr 27 2003 08:04 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Jon_Defined Offline

Registered: Wed Oct 16 2002
Posts: 31
Loc: Arlington, Texas

However, maybe the reason that Clinton didn't invade and conquer Iraq, was not because he lacked the intestinal fortitude, but that he didn't have clear and concise proof that Iraq had WMD.

Of course Clinton knew about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knew about them after 1995 when Hussein's son-in-laws blew the whistle on him and Saddam admitted he had them.

Clinton knew about them when on Feb 18, 1998 in order to justify firing missiles into Iraq, he said that Hussein was a danger. "Those who forget history are compelled to repeat it."

This is a CNN report of Clinton's speech:

Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs
Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world.
He accused Iraq of trying to thwart U.N. inspections by reinterpreting the meaning of Gulf War resolutions as to which sites can be inspected, for how long and by which inspectors.

Clinton, who has ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N. demands on weapons inspections: "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."

The president said the U.S. had the military means to achieve the objective and secure the "vital strategic interests" of the United States in the Gulf region.

"A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can, and will, leave him (Hussein) significantly worse off than he is now, in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors," Clinton said.
"Force can never be the first answer," he emphasized, "but sometimes it's the only answer.

And there is also this: Democrats for Regime change:

The sad thing is that everybody has known about Saddam's weapons. Al Gore even admitted that the democrats had a plan for regime change in Iraq, which became official U.S. policy in 1998. However, the protests only started when the President became a Republican. There were no mass protests over Clinton repeatly bombing Iraq (he bombed Iraq so much that they gave a nickname for it, but the name eludes me at the minute). There were no mass protests when Clinton decided on regime change in Kosovo and sent the marines in. No one holding signs saying "Think of all the little babies" and "baby killer." When Clinton bombed Iraq there were no signs of "No Blood for Oil" and think of all the little Iraqi babies being killled or maimed.

No they came later.

Interesting enough, mass organized protests cost huge amounts of money. They had to be financed. Guess where that money came from?

#169390 - Mon Apr 28 2003 01:27 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Kuu Offline

Registered: Mon Jun 03 2002
Posts: 1037
Loc: Hobart Tasmania Australia     
The time something should have been done about Saddam's WMD was when he was using them on people not 15 years later.

The message the US seems to be sending is 'you can gas you enemies, you can gas your own people - so long as you are our friend.'

We are now seeing the torture chambers used by the Iraqi Secret Police. The tortures that took place in them sound remarkably like what went on in similar places in Chile and Argentina while America was friends with President Pinochet of Chile and the military junta in Argentina. The American government turned a blind eye to such practices as they always have done when it suited them to.

Not that the Australian government is much better. It took us 25 years and the death of a quarter of million people before we went into East Timor and West Papua has suffered a similar fate in the last 40 years (and Australia, the UN, the US are all partly to blame for what has happened to West Papua)

#169391 - Mon Apr 28 2003 03:28 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
snm Offline

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
Better late than never.
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

#169392 - Wed Apr 30 2003 07:13 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Jax Offline

Registered: Mon Jun 11 2001
Posts: 724
Loc: Okla
Lisa,, In a perfect world we would all just disarm every nation and all citizens of any kind of weapon and be done with it.
Unfortunately we don't live in a utopian world, and must maintain weapons for self-defense because other nations have them too. But we do not want known criminals with offensive desires to possess WMD. And neither does other responsible nations.

We do have a right to stop emanate threats, and that is exactly what we are doing. And will continue to do whether our president is republican of democrat.

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Moderator:  ladymacb29, sue943