Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The world knows his intentions was to get the inspectors OUT of Iraq so he COULD renew his nuclear program.
I'd quite forgotten that elegant goalpost move. We went from "weapons" to "weapons programs" to "intentions of eventually restarting programs" as the hard evidence grew slimmer and slimmer.
Incidentally, the inspectors were withdrawn in 1998, re-entered in November 2002, and were withdrawn again just before the 2003 invasion. And there's exactly zero evidence of any emerging nuclear program from 1998-2002. Some centrifuge spare parts buried in a garden is pretty much what you have to hang your hat on.
But many of you will continue to spew your ignorance, anyway.
Notice they NEVER mention it was Clinton who signed the document caller for the removal of Saddam
If the dems didn't believe all the intelligence data, why did they support and call for Saddam's removal?
"The bill was sponsored by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) and co-sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican, CA-47). The bill was introduced as H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.[3]
"President Clinton stated in February 1998:
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. 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.... President Clinton ~ 1998[6]"
That's supposed to be better? If you subscribe to that hypothesis, the war missed achieving its primary objective, making it a complete strategic failure. Not much of a fig leaf.
Maybe it would have helped if Democrat Senator Rockefeller would have told everyone he planned to commit treason and give Iraq enough time to move their weapons before the war.
Notice they NEVER mention it was Clinton who signed the document caller for the removal of Saddam
If the dems didn't believe all the intelligence data, why did they support and call for Saddam's removal?
"The bill was sponsored by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) and co-sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican, CA-47). The bill was introduced as H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.[3]
"President Clinton stated in February 1998:
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. 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.... President Clinton ~ 1998[6]"
Ah, yes. Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act. Clinton and the Dems sure felt Saddam Hussein's removal from power and the prevention of Iraq's use of any more WMDs was mandatory.
Maybe it would have helped if Democrat Senator Rockefeller would have told everyone he planned to commit treason and give Iraq enough time to move their weapons before the war.
Yeah, the intention to go to war with Iraq was such a closely guarded secret in 2002. Kee-rist. For the party of personal responsibility, you're sure as all out not shy about passing the buck. Oh, you may want to look up the definition of treason.
1. Nobody cares about chemical weapons. That's not what was meant by "WMD," as I've explained earlier. Plenty of "unfriendly" nations have poison gas stockpiles; that's World War I technology that simply isn't a big concern to us. The hand-wringing was over an alleged nuclear program in Iraq. Almost nobody thought that invading Iraq on the basis of chemical weapons would have been a good idea - they were not the focus.
2. If nuclear WMD was "moved to Syria," then... where is it? Syria is in the middle of a civil war in which many of the regime's military bases have been overrun or taken over by the rebels. So... where is this magical nuclear WMD from Iraq? Why hasn't the regime used it against the rebels, if it has all of this stuff just laying around?
War support was bipartisan, however, the man who ultimately had to "pull the trigger" on the invasion was President Bush. He had a responsibility to take a very critical look at the intelligence he had been presented with, and to carefully question the motivations of the pro-war faction. It's fair to say that he abdicated those duties, and made an error as a result.
1. Nobody cares about chemical weapons. That's not what was meant by "WMD,"
Then why were they called such in the Department of Defense presentation used to explain the necessity of the war?
Quote:
2. If nuclear WMD was "moved to Syria," then... where is it? Syria is in the middle of a civil war in which many of the regime's military bases have been overrun or taken over by the rebels. So... where is this magical nuclear WMD from Iraq? Why hasn't the regime used it against the rebels, if it has all of this stuff just laying around?
No one said they stayed in Syria. Obama's Director of National Intelligence said Iraq's illicit weapons were moved to Syria. He did not say what Syria did with them after that.
Quote:
War support was bipartisan, however, the man who ultimately had to "pull the trigger" on the invasion was President Bush. He had a responsibility to take a very critical look at the intelligence he had been presented with, and to carefully question the motivations of the pro-war faction.
The pro-war faction being UNSCOM and the Clinton Admin. Are you saying we can never trust the UN or Democrats?
Are you saying we can never trust the UN or Democrats?
Well, as I said before:
Quote:
So the question is, which cross-party ideology most contributed to the calamity of the Iraq war? Because if we can figure out that, we might be wary when it shows up again in the future. And the answer would be foreign policy interventionist neoconservatism. "Neocon" gets thrown around way too casually, but the specific neoconservative doctrine of enthusiastic foreign interventionism was a big motivating factor in the runup to war. So, when we see similar doctrines being pushed today, we can think back to the Iraq experience, and stay wary.
"Intelligence" is not nearly as important as how it is interpreted/manipulated. When you see someone from the perma-war faction "spinning" intelligence to argue that what we need are more invasions and more occupations, then I certainly wouldn't trust that person, regardless of his other party or organizational affiliations.
Quote:
He did not say what Syria did with them after that.
Heck, maybe they're back in Iraq, and we've got to re-invade to stop the evildoers...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
