WARNING: Gathering WMD storm a crock. See what Clinton told nation in 1998...

CNN AllPolitics.com archives ^ | 6/2/03 (from 12/98 speech) | Bill Clinton

[Wolfstar]

Before anyone goes too far down the road of trying to bring down either the Bush or Blair administrations over questions about where the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are, a short detour into recent history is in order.

CLINTON: Good evening.

[hobbes1]

Thanx.

[Grampa Dave]

Great documentation. Of course that was the rats then. Below is how they are now:

[Grampa Dave]

Here is an excellent thread/oped by Daniel Pipes on this issue:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/922123/posts

IRAQ'S WEAPONS & THE ROAD TO WAR
New York Post ^ | 6/03/03 | DANIEL PIPES

[RedBloodedAmerican]

And now that we know more of Saddams's regimes work in Iraq, it is clear how inefective Clinton was, and his obvious goal on the eve of his impeachment vote was....

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I see twofold out of this:

1) That the liberals are lying again, when they fault Bush's decision to liberate Iraq, and

2) What Clinton's real goal was on the eve of his impeachment, considering his ineffectiveness and ignorant approach to randomly dropping bombs on Iraq.

Did Clinton think Saddams regime would just give up by getting lobbed a few bombs? I think we saw the truth in Iraqi Freedom.

[MeekMom]

Thank you Howlin!

[rintense]

Typical. The Dem double-standard strikes again.

[iceskater]

thanks Howlin!

[blackie]

Big Bump!

Let's Roll!

[Search4Truth]

Absence of proof, is not proof of absence.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[dirtboy]

Like how do we know for sure that from 1998-2001, Saddam *didn't* disarm?

We didn't. But under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, Saddam was supposed to destroy all WMDs and provide documentation to verify the destruction. He failed repeatedly to do so. Recall that even the French believed he still had them.

[Wolfstar]

Bill Clinton DID attack Iraq in December 1998. He just didn't bother to follow through. His sound and fury was empty rhetoric and empty gestures. George W. Bush, on the other hand, means exactly what he says and follows through on what he undertakes.

[Bigg Red]

You do not seem to understand the Left. It does not matter what Bill Clinton said or did. They (the Left) know that what matters is what they can make people believe today.

+++
Right you are, Michael. Let's move on.

[Bigg Red]

Thanks for reminding us of what liars and doubletalkers the Rats are.

[Wolfstar]

...but it just feels dirty to use arguments made from the man who finds an angle on is.

Understood. However, the point of this post was not to use Clinton's arguments, but to remind everyone that the entire senior level of the Clinton administration said Hussein had WMD, that they were a threat to the U.S. and the world, and that the U.S. needed to take aggressive action to eliminate that threat.

Above all, the point is that the United States Senate and President Bill Clinton set in motion regime change in Iraq as the policy of the United States government. But where Clinton failed to follow through on all his sound and fury, President George W. Bush took constructive action.

[Bigg Red]

Thanks for the flag, girlfriend.

[Wolfstar]

Perhaps because it was a Clinton speech, it didn't disappear from the archives. I did a Google search and found it that way. Delicious irony that it comes from a CNN site, isn't it. This way, no one so inclined can say it was doctored in any way.

[Bigg Red]

There is another speech from February 17, 1998, on the CNN archives that also belies the current Rat position. Some Freeper posted it in February of this year.