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]

Isn't possession of drug paraphernelia a crime in and of itself? Hence the folks in your hypothetical "house in LA" would still go to jail even though no actual drugs were found.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As far as I know, paraphernelia are the objects people use in the act of ingesting/inhaling drugs.

That lab would be the method of production of the drugs, which would provide conclusive evidence of the criminal act of manufacturing drugs.

In either case however, my theoretical applies.

We found the labs, they were making WMD's.

[Wolfstar]

Good point. Thanks.

[Almondjoy]

Your right.. how do you respond with out resorting to insults.. I was the one that said the difference between 1998 and 2003 was Sept 11th as my first post you responded to. Lay off the weed Mr. short term memory boy.

[nutmeg]

BTTT

[Wolfstar]

I agree with you in part: Iraq's chem and bioweapons most likely have been distributed elsewhere. The Israelis claimed many months ago that Iraq was transferring its WMD to Syria. Hussein may indeed have ordered it. Or, more likely, in my opinion, the material may have been stolen by members of the Iraqi army and scientists for later sale on the black market. Remember, they mostly fled the battlefield as our troops advanced. They left some things behind and took other materiel with them.

All over Iraq, British and American troops have found the most amazing quantities of all sorts of military weapons and equipment hidden in private homes, schools, hospitals, and so on. Quantities of chem and bioweapons could be anywhere. We will never be able to search every building, or every sand dune, or under every rock in the foothills bordering Iran. So the weapons may never be found, and you are right that they may still be a threat.

As for Hussein's connection to terrorists, that is a long, well-documented history, one which both pre- and post-dates the existence of Al-Queda. There was an Al-Queda-like training camp in northern Iraq, which we destroyed during the war earlier this year. The origin of the ricin plot against Britain was traced to that camp. The connection to Al-Queda may have been tenuous, but it did exist.

There are many more dimensions to the Iraq War, however. Unfortunately, this post would become too lengthy if I tried to touch on them all. On balance, we will all have to decide for ourselves whether or not we think it was worth it. Personally, I do. But as long as someone, such as yourself, has honest questions, I can respect their point of view.

[optik_b]

In October 1998, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change in Iraq the national policy of the United States. He gave the above speech in December 1998. As was typical for Clinton, he failed to carry through on this very tough speech. His military action was half-hearted, short-lived, and seemingly undertaken as a means to distract from the impeachment process then underway.

This reminds me of a dark time for some on the right when they questioned and critiqued our nation's armed forces while they were engaged in the Kosovo campaign in the balkans. For some on the right politics becomes such an obsessive issue that they cannot set aside politics even to support the military. This makes them almost as bad as the left wing who inherently have no love for country and only are loyal to a left win agenda.

[Wolfstar]

If I understand your point, correctly, optik_b, I agree with you.

[ezo4]

Seeing all this crap the demorats are pulling is realy really getting pissed off. Im realy not likeing these people these days ... but Ill be nice - I promise

[HitmanLV]

None of this matters - Dubya and Blair better find WMD or they will lose credibility they need to continue the war on terror. Period.

[Wolfstar]

The people who make the argument you do lack not only credibility, but logic. Do folks with your point of view contend that for 12 long years Saddam Hussein was calling some kind of insane bluff? That he never had WMD, but nevertheless allowed his power to be curbed by:

• Constant UN inspections — indeed, that he spent those years pretending to obstruct inspections and hide stuff he didn't have?
• Near daily bombings by the U.S. and Britain?
• The inabiltiy to exert free, sovereign control of not only Iraq's airspace, commerce, and its chief source of income, oil?

Hussein did all this for so long, why? When he threw the inspectors out in 1998, he did so why? In the 14-month build-up to the war earlier this year, Hussein had every opportunity to save his power (and possibly his life) by throwing open the country to UN inspections and cooperate fully. But he did not. Why, if he had no WMD? The truth is Hussein's actions only make sense in the context of his having something he desperately wanted to hide.

The truth also is that the international Left is trying to discredit the entirely justifiable overthrow of one of (if not the) most vicious, heinous, dangerous dictators in the post-WWII period.

[HitmanLV]

Wold, I agree with everything you said. But I also agree with everything I said. They are not mutually inconsistent.

The admin stuck its neck out. They must be right, or will suffer a terrible credibility loss.

That's the truth.

[america-rules]

Bump

[billbears]

Okay. Clinton said the same thing back in 1998. Doesn't change the point. The Democrats were wrong, the Republicans were wrong. Does that fact that the Democrats, who want to be in the business of nation building, believed the same thing somehow alleviate the issue?

Don't get me wrong, but all I'm seeing is 'well the Democrats said it too'. I thought conservatives held themselves to a higher standard than 'they said or did it too'. At least at one time not so many years ago they did.