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.
Clinton stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMD. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law. How is any of that Bush's fault?
If only we had had some sort of - I dunno, inspection team or something - who could have verified the claims of the GWB administration. That would have been very useful indeed.
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.
Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law. Signed, sealed, delivered.
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.
I do understand the general definition.
Thats why I wrote " in the context at that time ".
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
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.
Nope. Yellowcake was the start down the road to invasion. And was the excuse given. In an attempt to keep it going a CIA agent was even outed.
Nope. Yellowcake was the start down the road to invasion. And was the excuse given. In an attempt to keep it going a CIA agent was even outed.
More from that same wikipedia entry:
" According to The Washington Post, when occupying troops found no evidence of a current nuclear program, the statement and how it came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war. The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable." [6] "
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
Begs the question... WHY did Clinton sign into law the Iraq Liberation Act?
Begs the question why do you not understand the act states " that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq " and does nothing to mandate a full scale invasion/occupation?
So why did Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act allowing for such?
He didn't, because the act doesn't do what you apparently think it does. That was easy. I will state what you either don't know or have decided to lie about: The Iraq Liberation Act authorizes the President to support Iraqi groups in opposition to the Saddam Hussein regime and that is it. Its final paragraph specifically limits the military options:
Quote:
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
So let's look at section 4(a), shall we?
Quote:
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) Authority To Provide Assistance.--The President may provide to
the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance
with section 5 the following assistance:
(1) Broadcasting assistance.--(A) Grant assistance to such
organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such
organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United
States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to
carry out this paragraph.
(2) Military assistance.--(A) The President is authorized
to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of
the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department
of Defense, and military education and training for such
organizations.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided
under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
Got that? The act allows the President to issue military articles and training, not to exceed $97,000.000 in value, to Iraqi opposition groups.
Section 8 specifically forbids any other use of the United States Armed Forces, because the US Congress weren't born yesterday and know that mission creep tends to happen unless you're quite specific.
So - saying that the Iraqi Liberation Act allowed for an invasion of Iraq is quite frankly a bold-faced, flat-out lie. The next question is: InformedConsent, will you stop spreading that lie?
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.
Just 
