CNN: U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
Oh, so he says he received the same reports during his term and believed these same reports, but because they weren't the "latest", they weren't valid? You're over-simplifying and grasping now. It does matter because he was getting them from the same CIA.

At DIFFERNET time periods. Fact, several CIA officers dissented against both Tenet and George Bush and overall, the agency was pressured to arrived a pursuant conclusions based on corrupt, lying Iraqi defecters (of whom Rumsfeld and the Pentagon Neo Con cronies believed, I wonder why?). Obviously, there was dissent on the WMD issue within the CIA that was crushed and virtually no real debate allowed on the subject.

Regardless of whatever Clinton said, since we have no exact quotes to go on, there was an active debate considered within his intelligence branches.

It matters.

Why? What was his policy while in office? Was he running in the election? Why would it matter then?

He was the previous commander in chief.

So what? So was Jimmy Carter. What's his opinion on the subject? And oh yeah, what was Daddy's opinion on the whole thing? I clearly remember hearing he advised his idiot son to NOT INVADE IRAQ. As he did not do eleven years earlier, you know, when American troops stood by and watched Shiites get slaughtered. The one's in the mass graves we made such a huge moral issue out of. I guess it's all a matter of timing huh? Have you brought him up ever? Bring up one ex-President, bring 'em ALL!

You just hate the fact that he agreed with Bush, so you want to dismiss his opinion because it's convenient for your argument.

No actually I could give a shit what he thought, because he NEVER FORMED A POLICY TO INVADE IRAQ despite the fact Neo Con special interest groups and think tanks began lobbying for just that in the late 90's.

I've been arguing with the spin master for years Nick. You'll have to do better.

You sound like a bit of a "Clinton did it" spin meister yourself. That way you can avoid the debate on how bad and self-destructive our current President's foreign policy is. I understand.

[Big Train]

Wow, you libs really DO work as a team. Four people respond to the exact same post in succession. Like a fucking offensive line..

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
Wow, you libs really DO work as a team. Four people respond to the exact same post in succession. Like a fucking offensive line..

We're on the Air America Bullet Point Fax List, silly

[Big Train]

I see...United We Stand, Indeed...

[diamondD]

Washington Post


Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War But Questions Invasion's Timing

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page A04


Former president Bill Clinton said he agreed with President Bush's decision to confront Iraq about its potential weapons programs, but thought the administration erred in starting a war in 2003 rather than allowing United Nations weapons inspectors longer to carry out their work.



"In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process," Clinton told CBS News's Dan Rather in a "60 Minutes" interview to air tonight.

Clinton made similar comments in an interview with Time magazine, in which he said he "supported the Iraq thing" but questioned its timing. Portions of both interviews -- part of the publicity campaign in advance of this week's release of Clinton's memoirs -- were distributed in advance by the news organizations.

The Time excerpts, in particular, leave Clinton's views on Iraq somewhat jumbled. He both defends Bush for confronting a threat of which Clinton also spoke in dire terms while president, and minimizes the size and urgency of the problem posed by Iraq's suspected weapons programs.

Noting that he has "repeatedly defended President Bush against the left" on Iraq, Clinton dismissed the notion that the Iraq war was principally about protecting petroleum or financial interests.

Instead, he asserts that Bush acted primarily for ideological reasons and that the president was under the sway of Vice President Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis" that defeating Iraq would help transform the greater Middle East toward democracy.

Clinton's own rhetoric while president emphasized the commitments to allow unfettered weapons inspections that Iraq had made under the terms of surrender in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and the likelihood that then-President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use.

In February 1998, after Hussein blocked U.N. inspectors from entering Iraq, Clinton warned: "What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act? Or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

In the Time interview, Clinton said "I never really thought" Hussein would use his weapons but did worry that Iraqi weapons might be sold or given away.

Clinton ordered missile strikes against Iraq in December 1998 but did not press aggressively for U.N. inspectors to return. Bush administration officials said this was precisely the "ambiguous third route" in Clinton's warning. But Bush has been embarrassed by the failure of inspectors after Hussein's fall last year to find major weapons programs.

In the Time interview, Clinton suggested that he was concerned after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that Iraq had "a lot of stuff unaccounted for." But in the same interview he seemed to warn against exaggerations about how many weapons were ever suspected.

He said at the time the United Nations pulled out the weapons inspectors in 1998, not to return until after Bush came to power, "there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents" in addition to some "chemical agents" such as VX and ricin that were "unaccounted for."

"Keep in mind," Clinton urged Time interviewers Michael Duffy and Joe Klein, "that's all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity."

[diamondD]

Bill Clinton Defends Bush on Iraq
By Larry Elder
Townhall.com | August 1, 2003

President George W. Bush, under siege for "misleading" the country into war against Iraq, received some help from an unusual source -- former President Bill Clinton.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . " said Clinton recently on "Larry King Live." Also, Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's stockpiles of or his capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know," said Clinton.

Presidential contender Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, actually suggested impeachment of the president over Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech reference about an Iraqi-Africa uranium connection. But Clinton said, "The White House said . . . that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. . . . British intelligence still maintain that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. . . . Here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11th -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought."

About the gravity of the president's "error" -- never mind that the British still stand by the Africa/uranium assertion -- Clinton said, "You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do right now."

Why does Clinton, a consistent and persistent critic of this administration, suddenly leap to Bush's defense? After all, polls show Bush's popularity coming down from the post-major-Iraqi-war-operations peak. And the White House appears off-balance in their defense of Bush's speech reference to Iraqi attempts at purchasing uranium in Africa. Furthermore, Americans quite understandably show concern over the almost daily headlines of anti-American Iraqis ambushing soldiers.

Clinton's motives? Check out the just-released Joint Congressional Committee report on 9-11. Under Clinton's watch, the Committee reports how intelligence apparatus failed to connect the dots. Yes, lapses occurred under the current president, but Clinton missed numerous opportunities to focus on the growing terror threat, including opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. Clinton knows that constant browbeating over the alleged lack of Iraqi "imminence" and of Bush's "security failures" serves only to make Clinton's presidency look bad. If anything, the "imminent threat" loomed during Clinton's administration, and he knows he took insufficient action to quell it.

Meanwhile, the Bush anti-war critics either support or sit silently as Bush ponders the use of our military to stop civil war bloodshed in Liberia -- a humanitarian mission. But does the existence of Iraqi shallow graves, torture chambers, and executions translate into support, if belated, for the war against Iraq?

Human Rights Watch says, "The Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party has been in power in Iraq since 1968. Under the leadership of President Saddam Hussein, who seized power in 1979, the Iraqi government has committed a vast number of crimes against the Iraqi people and others, using terror through various levels of police, military, and intelligence agencies to control and intimidate large segments of the Iraqi population. Two Iraqi groups in particular have suffered horrific abuses -- the Kurds in the north, and Shi'a populations in the south. Two decades of oppression against Iraq's Kurds and Kurdish resistance culminated in 1988 with a genocidal campaign, and the use of chemical weapons, against Kurdish civilians, resulting in over 100,000 deaths. . . . Saddam Hussein and others . . . are responsible for a vast number of crimes that constitute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The victims of such crimes include up to 290,000 persons who have been 'disappeared' since the late 1970s, many of whom are believed to have been killed."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan opposed the war in Iraq, despite the U.S.'s national security concerns. Back then, Annan said, "My position has always been very clear, that I think it would be unwise to attack Iraq, given the current circumstances of what's happening in the Middle East." Yet Annan now demands that the U.S. send troops to Liberia, "I think we can really salvage the situation if troops were to be deployed urgently and promptly."

Maybe Annan might benefit from a chat with former President Clinton.
Even more endoresments to cover himself.

[diamondD]

Mistakes were made, by both parties. Jumping up and down pointing fingers about the past aren't going to do anything. The only thing now is solutions to achieve our mission and get our people home. Period.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by diamondD
The only thing now is solutions to achieve our mission and get our people home. Period.

What is our mission?

Somebody tell Junior, I think he's in the dark on this one.

[diamondD]

Shit stirrer At least you responded...

[Spc. Graner]

I believe that a young William J. Clinton also played a major role in the Cuban Missle Crisis. In another words, he must be stopped.

Next he'll be supporting Bush's fanstastic plan for Social Security! Bastard.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
Washington Post


Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War But Questions Invasion's Timing

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page A04


Former president Bill Clinton said he agreed with President Bush's decision to confront Iraq about its potential weapons programs, but thought the administration erred in starting a war in 2003 rather than allowing United Nations weapons inspectors longer to carry out their work.



"In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process," Clinton told CBS News's Dan Rather in a "60 Minutes" interview to air tonight.

Not that I think Clinton is being disingenuous, but the key phrase here is that the U.N was never allowed to verify the existence of WMD's. I also think Bubba is covering his ass over the fact that his Administration was waging an under-reported airwar over Iraq for several years. The second article also quotes only the statements Elders wants you to know. I also recall Clinton makng numerous statements about how we were rushing things and that there was no tie between al-Qaida and Saddam's gov't, etc. And since he was no longer president, of course he will talk out of his ass.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
What is our mission?

Somebody tell Junior, I think he's in the dark on this one.

Somebody look-up quagmire in the dictionary for Dubya!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Know what?

"You guys" bring Clinton up more than "we" do. FACT.

Yeah just like all the other 'FACTS' you post...

Posts mentioning Clinton-

BigBadBrian: 132
Nickdfresh: 117
LoungeMachine: 24
Seshmeister: 14

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
Mistakes were made...

Like electing Bush.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Posts mentioning Clinton-

BigBadBrian: 132
Nickdfresh: 117
LoungeMachine: 24
Seshmeister: 14

Ha Ha!

BigBlanBrian is a fucking liar! FACT!