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.

[Wolfstar]

GREAT supplement to the printed version. Thank you very much for posting it.

[Wolfstar]

Genuine thanks for the clarification. You are right, of course.

[Wolfstar]

Luis, two Senate committees are preparing some kind of joint "investigation" into why no WMD have been found to date in Iraq. Sen. John Warner, a Republican and chairman of one of the committees involved, has already huffed and puffed about how "America's credibility is at stake." My outrage over this development knows no bounds, because such hearings are the Democrats fondest wet dream of the moment.

[Wolfstar]

Terrific image, Grampa Dave and Registered.

[Grampa Dave]

This has to be one of Registered's top creations. It really shows how whacked out the lunatic libs are with their whining re WMDS, while ignoring the mass graves being found.

[Wolfstar]

With respect, Agape, MY premise in posting this thread was and remains this:

• In overthrowing Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush implemented long-standing U.S. policy.
• That policy was established by the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
• The 1998 Act was in response to the fact that Saddam Hussein had been obstructing UN weapons inspectors for years, culminating in his throwing them out of Iraq in 1998.
• In December 1998, Clinton acted on the law he had signed that October, and took aggressive military action against Iraq. However, his actions were brief and he failed to follow through.
• In the post-9/11 (and post anthrax attacks) world, President Bush correctly decided that the games the UN, U.S., and Britain had been playing with Hussein for 12 long years were just too dangerous to continue. So he did what Clinton failed to do — follow through on the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.
• ALL of the above actions were taken because the many and varied decision-makers involved believed that Hussein had WMD and that he might someday use them for terroristic purposes. They not only had solid intelligence from defectors, but they had Hussein's own actions and declarations to base their beliefs on.
• In the four years (1998-2002) after Hussein threw out the inspectors and before they returned late last year, did he disarm on his own? His own actions argue against that being the case. If he had nothing to hide in the 14-month run-up to his overthrow in April, why did he act like he did?

I posted Clinton's 1998 address to the nation because, in it, he makes exactly the same arguments that President Bush did later. I posted it because the fools in the United States Senate (most of whom voted for the 1998 Act) are now huffing and puffing about investigating whether or not we were "misled" about Iraq having WMD. I posted it because the Left is gleefully sharpening their political swords in anticipation of bringing this great President down over the "failure" to find WMD.

[Wolfstar]

Pinging you in support of Tony Blair's Iraq policy.

(An aside: Don't agree with him about pulling Britain closer to the EU and dumping the pound for the Euro, but that's for the British people to decide. One can disagree about policy matters while still maintaining respect for a person, as I do for PM Blair.)

[GOPJ]

I know liberals and here's how they think: "Well, like it was true when Clinton said it, and it's like, you know, not true when Bush says it."

[Traffic_Can]

What the libs wish for is that all pertinent historical facts, to be conveniently relegated to the "Memory Hole".

[Wolfstar]

LOL, but also right on.

[votelife]

bttt

[VOA]

My ribs are still recovering from the bitter laughter over Nancy Pelosi saying that
Saddam didn't have WMD...and that if we attacked Sadam, he'd use WMD on our troops.

[Wolfstar]

As a California resident, I'm embarrassed by the hard-Left likes of Pelosi, Waters, et. al., who infest our state's delegation. God help us all if that crowd ever gets back in the Congressional majority. [shudder]

[Almondjoy]

Attacked.. not invaded.. obviously you don't seem to know the difference since you had to point that out. You seem also to not address the fact that the situation was different in 1998 as opposed to 2003.

[Wolfstar]

As a Republican with a Libtertarian-leaning bent, prior to 9/11 I could broadly be characterized as in the "America First" camp. So I can understand the point of view of someone who is ambivalent over the Iraq War. But 9/11 changed everything for me and now, while I do understand, I respectfully don't agree that there are "too many questions unanswered."

Thankfully, we have not been attacked here at home again (although I expect we will some day). But look at it this way: Suppose we had been attacked again, in comparatively rapid succession and in a variety of ways. In your own private reasoning, be honest with yourself and answer this question: What would your attitude be if, instead of 3,000 dead, we suffered 10,000 or more? Would you want the President to sit around dithering with the UN while your life and the lives of your family were in danger, or act decisively to prevent further attacks? That's the question George W. Bush had to face as dawn broke on December 12th, 2001 — and continually thereafter as the anthrax attacks unfolded.

Where one stands on the Iraq War depends on whether one continues to view the world through a pre- or post-9/11 prism.

[Wolfstar]

Attacked.. not invaded.. obviously you don't seem to know the difference since you had to point that out. You seem also to not address the fact that the situation was different in 1998 as opposed to 2003.

Hmmm...how to respond without stooping to insults.

• Attacked vs. invaded: When 12 years of warnings, and "one last chances," and sanctions, and bombings don't work, policy makers are left with increasingly few options.
• The situation was different in 1998 as opposed to 2003: Yep, you're right on that one. In between, a little thing commonly referred to as "9/11" happened. You do remember, don't you? Multiple hijackings, buildings burning and crumbling, the United States Capitol under attack (first time since 1812), anthrax terrorism all up and down the East Coast, the New York Stock Exchange shut down, airplanes grounded...the "situation" was vastly different in the pre- vs. the post-9/11 world. President Bush said he would take the fight to the terrorists, and those who harbor and support them. That is EXACTLY what he has done and continues to do.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Are you arguing that Clinton the rapist liar is a credible source? Clinton also claimed (falsely) that genocide had happened in Kosovo. It is rather interesting to see my fellow Clinton haters cite him to back up their claims of WMD! It is akin to those freepers who hate the UN but then claim that "enforcement of UN resolutions" was a proper justification for the war with Iraq.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If we raid a house in LA and find no drugs, but instead uncover a fully-equiped crystal meth lab, do we have proof of illegal going-ons or not?

[Wolfstar]

No, Austin. Please see my Post #66 on this thread for a full explanation of my premise in posting Clinton's address. In 1998 the Iraq Liberation Act made regime change in that country U.S. policy. Clinton briefly acted on that new law in December 1998. In the post-9/11 world, President Bush implemented that policy.

As an aside, although I would rank Bill Clinton among the bottom four or five presidents in U.S. history, I would also tell you that I have never been a Clinton hater. My arguments with him were over policy and and conduct unbecoming a president of the United States. I can despise what he did and what he stands for without hating him on a personal level.

I believe recent history shows that Bill Clinton's handling of foreign affairs in general, and national policy as regards Iraq and terrorism in particular was, to put it generously, negligent. Nevertheless, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, and the premise of Clinton's 1998 address to the nation was correct, even though what he did about it was lousy.