[spacefreak]

Clinton believes Iraq had WMD

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

Just some fodder for those in the "Bush lied" crowd who dismiss or ignore the fact that Clinton too believed Iraq had WMD, for it was not only GWB who concluded as much from the intelligence presented before him.

[Developer]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Clinton too believed Iraq had WMD.

To believe means to not know.

("Glauben heißt nicht wissen." - German saying)

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Just some fodder for those in the "Bush lied" crowd who dismiss or ignore the fact that Clinton too believed Iraq had WMD, for it was not only GWB who concluded as much from the intelligence presented before him.

Sure you're not just in need of some reassurance?

[Logic]

Clinton said it so it must be right! I'm changing my oppinion on the war, the WoT, and my dislike for Bush!

Thanks spacefreak for making this clear to me! Did he also believe there would be "massive findings" reported in last september?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Sure you're not just in need of some reassurance?

I just believe, judging from all the mentions and declarations of Iraq's WMD by leaders on all sides of the spectrum (and in other nations), that the intelligence leads only to the conclusion that Iraq had such weapons.

With that said, I find it appalling that so many accuse Bush of "lying" when he concludes that Iraq had WMD while raising no objections when other leaders past and present concluded the same.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
With that said, I find it appalling that so many accuse Bush of "lying" when he concludes that Iraq had WMD while raising no objections when other leaders past and present concluded the same.

Very few of them wanted to invade Iraq.........

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Clinton believes Iraq had WMD
Just some fodder for those in the "Bush lied" crowd who dismiss or ignore the fact that Clinton too believed Iraq had WMD, for it was not only GWB who concluded as much from the intelligence presented before him.

Most people did, but Bush went farther than that. He made the little claim about seeking uranium in Africa, and Ambassador Wilson came out and said that the claim was bunk, and that he had investigated and told the administration so.

There is also the distinction Developer points out. Clinton believed Saddam still had WMDs, even after the joint American British Operation Desert Fox, but he had not acted further on it, giving you some idea how strong Clinton's belief was. Bush claimed to know Saddam had WMDs, and that was a lie. Even if WMDs are found, if Bush really did know that Saddam had them, instead of merely having enough evidence to suspect, then we should have the WMDs by now.

Sorry, but Bush can't get off the hook that easily.

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
Very few of them wanted to invade Iraq.........

Who's "them"? I've got a plethora of material from the past 5 years showing Democrats and Republicans alike supported the attack of Iraq due to the threat posed by their WMD.

Or maybe you are speaking of leaders of other nations. Please specify.

[Krusty]

... and yet he was smart enough to not spend billions of dollars and a huge chunk of our military as a pre-emptive measure only to discover nothing was there but, at best, "plans" and some raw materials that had not yet been forged into weapons.

I think the fact that Clinton believed the same thing as Bush illustrates clearly the "shoot first, find out if we're right afterwards" turn in policy since Bush & Co. took over.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Clinton...had not acted further on it, giving you some idea how strong Clinton's belief was.

"Absolutely convinced" is "absolutely convinced", depending on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Bush claimed to know Saddam had WMDs, and that was a lie.

I'm looking at the State of the Union right now...Here's what i see a lot of:

The United Nations concluded in 1999...Our intelligence officials estimate...U.S. intelligence indicates...The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed...

Looks to me like Bush based his decision on intelligence and information presented to him.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Krusty:
I think the fact that Clinton believed the same thing as Bush illustrates clearly the "shoot first, find out if we're right afterwards" turn in policy since Bush & Co. took over.

If the nation experienced a 9/11-style attack during Clinton's tenure, maybe we could compare/contrast his response to the "convincing" information.

All we have is a WTC bombing under Clinton in which he refused to visit the site while also refusing at least 3 offers by other nations to hand over Bin Laden.

Clinton also stated that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq (obviously based on intelligence).

[Developer]

What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Developer:
What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

or



or



You choose

:gets popcorn and cola to be prepared for spacefreaks response:

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
"Absolutely convinced" is "absolutely convinced", depending on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Actions speak louder than words.

BG

[MathewM]

Originally posted by Developer:
What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

There lies the disagreement.

National Security became the utmost importance. Iraq was a threat to national security.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If the nation experienced a 9/11-style attack during Clinton's tenure, maybe we could compare/contrast his response to the "convincing" information.

There was the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton launched attacks on terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and a suspected factory in the Sudan.

The GOP called them the "Monica Missiles" because they regarded their impeachment witch hunt to be more important than terrorists.

All we have is a WTC bombing under Clinton in which he refused to visit the site while also refusing at least 3 offers by other nations to hand over Bin Laden.

The embassy bombings were bigger than that, and Clinton attacked Afghanistan over it. The GOP, though, is only hard on terrorism when it will benefit their party. Otherwise, they hamstring efforts to respond to terrorists.

BlackGriffen

[hyteckit]

What about North Korea? They are a big threat too no? And they do have WMD.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MathewM:
National Security became the utmost importance. Iraq was a threat to national security.

In what way was Iraq a threat to US national security?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The embassy bombings were bigger than that, and Clinton attacked Afghanistan over it. The GOP, though, is only hard on terrorism when it will benefit their party. Otherwise, they hamstring efforts to respond to terrorists.

This was a one-time, overnight decision to lob a few token missiles into Afghanistan. Perhaps if Clinton had a strategy, or a plan, to specifically deal with the perpetrators, the GOP response may have been different.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
This was a one-time, overnight decision to lob a few token missiles into Afghanistan. Perhaps if Clinton had a strategy, or a plan, to specifically deal with the perpetrators, the GOP response may have been different.

Assuming facts not in evidence. You seem to be good at that...

Especially the fact that the moment it happened, everybody was up in arms over it being a "Wag the Dog" scenario.

BlackGriffen

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Logic:
In what way was Iraq a threat to US national security?

Saddam's pet monkey had a water pistol.

[zigzag]

I think that, as others have suggested, the difference is that the Bush administration took it to another level of seriousness and urgency. It seemed self-evident to me a year ago that they were cherry-picking and exaggerating the evidence, and it seems all the more evident now. I don't think one has to be a Bush opponent to see this - it was old-fashioned politics. They had decided to invade, they had to sell the idea, and conveying a sense of urgency about WMD was the easiest way. I didn't like the spin but since I felt there were a variety of good reasons to forcibly overthrow Saddam, I tolerated it.

I think the administration also, in good faith, saw a variety of reasons to forcibly overthrow Saddam, and you can find references to them, but I nonetheless think they exaggerated the WMD threat as a way to sell an immediate invasion to the public. Saddam was being contained and there was no compelling reason to call off the inspectors and invade at that particular time apart from the fact that the administration had decided to invade no matter what. I could see the merits in this but I don't blame opponents for feeling that the WMD card was deliberately overplayed.

So, while it's useful to know what Clinton believed (is there anyone who didn't think Saddam was a threat to one degree or another?), I don't think it settles the question of whether the Bush administration fudged things in order to justify an immediate invasion.

I think Wolfowitz was uneasy with the WMD rhetoric. I think it's too bad he wasn't given a larger role in publicly articulating the administration's policy - I found him to be more forthright, balanced and persuasive than the other players. But he's more of an egghead than a politician.

If the Iraq strategy works, this will probably become a footnote.

[theolein]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I just believe, judging from all the mentions and declarations of Iraq's WMD by leaders on all sides of the spectrum (and in other nations), that the intelligence leads only to the conclusion that Iraq had such weapons.

With that said, I find it appalling that so many accuse Bush of "lying" when he concludes that Iraq had WMD while raising no objections when other leaders past and present concluded the same.

I don't really give a stuff about the whole WMD circus anymore, but I find it amusing and ironic that you use Clinton's position on Iraq for support of Bush's original intentions, as opposed to your usual position on almost everything Clinton did. To put it simply, why is Clinton's position on Iraqi WMD ok but not on anything else?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by theolein:
I To put it simply, why is Clinton's position on Iraqi WMD ok but not on anything else?

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day?

[theolein]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day?

With such deep insights into the nature of things, shouldn't you be applying for Mensa membership?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by theolein:
With such deep insights into the nature of things, shouldn't you be applying for Mensa membership?

- Been there, done that. The pat-themselves-on-the-back-society costs $50 US a year that I can put towards a better, charitable, use.

[Zimphire]

Space was just pointing out the obvious.


Clinton believing Iraq had WMDs = Good

Bush believing Iraq had WMDs = HE IS A LIAR!!11! OMG!!1 IMPEACH!!!1!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Space was just pointing out the obvious.


Clinton believing Iraq had WMDs = Good

Bush believing Iraq had WMDs = HE IS A LIAR!!11! OMG!!1 IMPEACH!!!1!

sigh...the difference has already been explained.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sigh...the difference has already been explained.

The difference is that Bush acted upon it. Clinton pussy footed around dropping bombs here and there.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Saddam's pet monkey had a water pistol.

It's idiotic responses like that that totally debase any opinion you have.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by theolein:
To put it simply, why is Clinton's position on Iraqi WMD ok but not on anything else?

I thought Clinton's position on NAFTA was good, too.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day?

Which is what percent of the time?

BlackGriffen

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Clinton believes Iraq had WMD
Just some fodder for those in the "Bush lied" crowd who dismiss or ignore the fact that Clinton too believed Iraq had WMD, for it was not only GWB who concluded as much from the intelligence presented before him.

That you think this makes any difference to the arguement against invading Iraq shows how partisan you think the debate is. That you think the debate is partisan suggests that your support for Bush is also partisan and based not on the merits of his arguement but rather on the political party he represents.

My lack of support for Bush's moves has nothing to do with his being a Republican. It has to do with his lack of a convincing arguement.

Clinton was a poor President ... but Clinton being a poor President does not make Bush a good one.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Which is what percent of the time?

BlackGriffen

8.33%, why?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
That you think this makes any difference to the arguement against invading Iraq shows how partisan you think the debate is. That you think the debate is partisan suggests that your support for Bush is also partisan and based not on the merits of his arguement but rather on the political party he represents.

My lack of support for Bush's moves has nothing to do with his being a Republican. It has to do with his lack of a convincing arguement.

Clinton was a poor President ... but Clinton being a poor President does not make Bush a good one.

I clearly stated that it was fodder for the "Bush lied" crowd. If you are not a member of that group, then my post does not apply to you.

But if you claim Bush lied, then so did Clinton (and most of Congress, many foreign leaders, the UN, etc.).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
But if you claim Bush lied, then so did Clinton (and most of Congress, many foreign leaders, the UN, etc.).

Yes. if Bush lied, then so did Clinton. So? I don't think there's any question that Clinton is above bending the truth. Not inhaling and not having sex come to mind. Are you seriously trying to draw parallels between Bush and Clinton?

To turn your logic around, if Clinton's a liar, then so is Bush, and I'm not arguing that Clinton isn't a liar.

[maxelson]

Mr. Oneill's statement: Bush DID lie. He was looking for ANYTHING to promote the invasion.
Regardless of the outcome and whether or not you agree with it- your leader LIED to you. THe leader of the free world intentionally misled us into a war. And if this WERE Clinton in office, there's no WAY you'd be toeing this mark. NO WAY. You'd be poking holes in this case left and right, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll just have to c'mon out and hold you up to the light as a liar.

Your President LIED. MISLED. ABUSED POWER. And you have no problem with this. Apparently.

Yes. Clinton was wrong as well. And? 500 American soldiers and God knows how many Iraqis- civilian and non- are dead because of Bush's lie. Or "error".

This just in: spacefreak promotes partisanism, hashes every attempt possible to belittle and demean folks who disagree with his political stance. shocker. will he have the integrity to actually EXAMINE what his President is doing in his name?
Just a guess: NO.

[christ]

It is always seen as all right for someone to lie, cheat, steal, and abuse power if he is on your side, and you are on the right.

See Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, and any number of other film heroes. If you 'know' that you are right, you can short cut past all of the know-nothing pinko commie fag liberals, do away with 'innocent until proven guilty, cut to the chase and execute the bad guy. Then we can all stand around congratulating ourselves that everything turned out right, despite the system.

Apparently this is where Dubya (and freak, Mattie etc.) learnt their foreign policy.

Unfortunately, life is not a movie, and what you 'know' in real life sometimes turns out to be wrong. Movies have scripts which avoid these problems, real life is unscripted, and unpredictable.

[thunderous_funker]

Quoting an impeached liar as proof that Bush isn't a liar?

Curioser and curioser.

The WMD team left Iraq. If the White House has stopped trying rationalize the WMD-alarmist rhetoric, why can't it's supporters?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If the White House has stopped trying rationalize the WMD-alarmist rhetoric, why can't it's supporters?

{pssst....they have. NOW the password is "regime change". pass it on: the new password is "regime change". Deny all previous passwords.....the supporters of bush have been ordered to deny WMD-alarmist rhetoric....it never happened, therefore bush did not lie....this tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds, mr. phelps}

[Wiskedjak]

I actually don't believe that Bush lied about believing there were WMDs in Iraq. I suspect there was quite a bit of evidence to suggest that there were WMDs in Iraq. However, I believe that anyone even vaguely familiar with Saddam Hussein would realize there was a very strong possibility that he manufactured this evidence to convince his opponents that he was not to be messed with.

Using WMDs as a primary excuse for regime change when you know there's a chance they don't exist not only seems short-sighted, it also seems deceptive. I don't believe Bush lied about WMDs, but I do believe he exagerated the facts about the issue and I can't help but wonder why when there were so many other more legitimate justifications for invasion.

I suspect that the Administration didn't think they could sell the UN on regime change based upon the arguement that Americans wish to oust Saddam. Likewise, I suspect the Admin didn't think the American people would have bought the "Liberating Iraqis" arguement (sounds a little like "Liberal") to justify the very high price of regime change in Iraq.

So, I believe the Admin rolled the dice: hoping that there were WMDs in Iraq and believing that they spin the debate to their favour if there weren't. More to the point, assuming the above, I'm forced to wonder why it was so important to remove Saddam from power that the truth needed to be distorted.

[maxelson]

Wiskedjak: a magnificent question. Anyone?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I actually don't believe that Bush lied about believing there were WMDs in Iraq. I suspect there was quite a bit of evidence to suggest that there were WMDs in Iraq. However, I believe that anyone even vaguely familiar with Saddam Hussein would realize there was a very strong possibility that he manufactured this evidence to convince his opponents that he was not to be messed with.

Using WMDs as a primary excuse for regime change when you know there's a chance they don't exist..

Bush shouldn't have acted on the chance WMDs didn't exist? Sorry, that's precisely opposite of the way I'd approach it. There's no way I'd risk the chance of Saddam Hussein actually having (or getting) WMDs.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Wiskedjak: a magnificent question. Anyone?

I believe I have answered that previously...its just that some don't like the answer.

Iraq needed to be reshaped in order to make it a base of american operations in the middle east. Its oil reserves, reputed to be one of the largest untapped in the world, and its geographic strategic location demanded that in order to reshape the rest of the middle east into a more compliant US-catering region, Iraq had to be conquered FIRST.

That is why Bush needed to invade, come hell or high water. That is why the case had to be made, falsely, of Iraq's connection to 9/11. Bush administration needed to absolutely have control of Iraq before his second term (if he gets one).
During the second term is when the hegemony expands outward from Iraq into Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

That's why the justifications kept shifting because all of them were false except regime change (hegemony).

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Bush shouldn't have acted on the chance WMDs didn't exist? Sorry, that's precisely opposite of the way I'd approach it. There's no way I'd risk the chance of Saddam Hussein actually having (or getting) WMDs.

keep on spinning, spinning, spinning.....

---right winged Dory

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Bush shouldn't have acted on the chance WMDs didn't exist? Sorry, that's precisely opposite of the way I'd approach it. There's no way I'd risk the chance of Saddam Hussein actually having (or getting) WMDs.

That's not true. If the chances of Saddam Hussein having WMDs was 0.000000001%, that's a chance not worth bothering over. A chance of 99.9999999% is essentially certain. Would you guys mind estimating these chances you're talking about instead of just using absolutist language?

BG

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
keep on spinning, spinning, spinning.....

Could you be more absurd? HOW is that spin? I wrote about how I'd approach it. Do you have ANY reason to believe I actually don't think this way?

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by vmarks:
8.33%, why?

Nah man, it's less than 1%. There are 1440 minutes in a day. Only 2 minutes in a day is correct. So 2 minutes out of 1440 minutes is less than 1%.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
That's not true. If the chances of Saddam Hussein having WMDs was 0.000000001%, that's a chance not worth bothering over. A chance of 99.9999999% is essentially certain...

Yes, well seeing as how he actually used chem weapons in the past I didn't feel the chances were only 0.000000001%. And neither did you. Can you show me the post from before the war where you claimed Saddam didn't have any WMDs?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Yes, well seeing as how he actually used chem weapons in the past I didn't feel the chances were only 0.000000001%. And neither did you. Can you show me the post from before the war where you claimed Saddam didn't have any WMDs?

I was being illustrative about how the english language is vague.

The important bit was asking you what sort of chance you figured on.

For the record, yes, I believed it was certain he had WMD, and I still think that it was all done wrong. I was starting to have my doubts, though, as the new inspections kept finding nothing.

BlackGriffen