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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Actually, it does. The Iraq Liberation Act, signed by Clinton in 1998. The liberation of Iraq was the goal. Clinton signed and approved.
Your obsession with Clinton is scary.
Bush ordered the invasion/occupation of Iraq after the US was attacked by forces having nothing to do with Iraq. You continue to avoid answering just WHY liberating Iraq should have taken priority over finding/eliminating those who attacked the US?
HINT: Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act before the US was attacked by forces having nothing to do with Iraq and is absolutely, completely, unquestionably irrelevant as to the wisdom of focusing on Iraq rather than those who actually attacked the US.
GWB's rearguard have elevated "lying by omission" to something close to an art. They know full well that pre-1991 shells weren't a good reason to go to war and that the pre-war agitprop wasn't about "we have to secure the rotting remains of Saddam's abandoned WMD prograns" - but by now, a rifle bullet dipped in Windex will count as vindication for them.
Even Democrat Clinton adhered to that definition when he launched attacks against Iraq.
Going further in the same quote from wikipedia:
' In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2] This single sentence is now known as "the Sixteen Words." '
You really need to read more about the Yellowcake incident. It destroys your argument.
In the context at that time weapons of mass destruction meant nuclear.
Clinton stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMD. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law. How is any of that Bush's fault?
Bush the Lesser decided to mount a full air, sea and land invasion under the cockamamie precept that Iraq was a direct threat. Clinton was smart enough to not do that. But you're actually right, it's not Bush's fault per se that he didn't have the statesman skills to predict that his little adventure would go wrong.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Clinton stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMD. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law. How is any of that Bush's fault?
WE GET IT!
You're obsessed with Bill Clinton!
Now please answer the question: WHY should the liberation of Iraq have been a priority after the US was attacked by forces having nothing to do with Iraq?
HINT: "Clinton this" or "Clinton that" is completely irrelevant to the question and not an answer.
In the context at that time weapons of mass destruction meant nuclear.
I do so hate to split hairs, but I think you may have this one incorrect - the general definition of WMD is NBC, and while the GWB administration sure did what they could to muddy the waters as much as possible, that is, in all fairness, the definition commonly used.
Not that it makes the OPs spin on an NYT story any less despicable.
' In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2] This single sentence is now known as "the Sixteen Words." '
You really need to read more about the Yellowcake incident. It destroys your argument.
In the context at that time weapons of mass destruction meant nuclear.
It's not just about yellowcake. Even Clinton acknowledged Iraq's WMDs as being also chemical and biological. Stop obsessing on yellowcake. That's only a small part of the issue.
So why did Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act allowing for such?
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.
