Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bensdaddy
Of course you know if this was the other way around...it would be the lead story for a month.

Clinton used the WMD intelligence info to bomb Iraq. If Bush is "guilty of lies", wouldn't Clinton's claim (along with all the Democrats who agreed with him at the time) Saddam had WMD's also be a crime? Did Bill Clinton's administration also lie to us?

Where did Bill Clinton get his WMD information to bomb Iraq in 1998? Where did the Democrats that supported his attack get their WMD information? Why would their intel information be acceptable enough to war with Iraq when Clinton attacked, yet it's not acceptable now?

We need an investigation to find out if Saddam really had WMDs as far back as 1998, when our government was telling us he had, and where did that information start?
The only way to sort all this out is to start at the very beginning. Right after Desert storm, because we know he had them at the time.

57 posted on 11/05/2003 12:42:04 PM PST by concerned about politics ( As a rightous man declarith a thing, so shall it be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: concerned about politics
And, of course, why didn't Clinton have to get U.N. approval for that bombing?
62 posted on 11/05/2003 1:05:00 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

To: concerned about politics
The administration is not saying this directly, because Intelligence is SUPPOSED to be SEPERATE from the administration and NON-PARTISAN in order to protect the integrity of the data gathered and it's embarrassing, but intelligence "gathered" during the Clinton admin was indeed used to estimate the progression and actual level of Saddam's weapons programs.

Clinton admin intelligence was only a SMALL part of the mix, but it was poured in after only cursery inspection and stirred in with the rest in order to complete the concatenation process and arrive at an answer. This is how it's supposed to be done, but...uh...well...it was an obvious mistake.

Mentioning way back when that the data may be skewed because of the type of people who started making the "sexed-up" charges, and needs to be examined because those people should have had any understanding of the ingredients added to the process, only earns you a tinfoil hat award rather than serious consideration. It's a gut instinct thing. In retrospect, it seems that the people calling for careful reexamination of that data were right.

63 posted on 11/05/2003 1:05:58 PM PST by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson