Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq’s capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
Conservative Outpost linked with What DMD's?
Reasoned Audacity: Politics in Real Life linked with Bill Clinton on WMD's
exvigilare linked with Liar, liar, pants on fire (pt 1)
The Anchoress linked with UN Confirms: WMD smuggled out of Iraq?
euphoricreality.net linked with DROP ZONE - Open Post
Flight Pundit linked with Liar, Liar, Liar,
On Being Ranum In Japan linked with The President Lied!
Hyscience linked with Clinton On Iraq: Good Idea, Bad Idea, Etc.... (Updated)
Truckin’ Wifi linked with History Re-Written
Oliver Willis linked with So Funny
California Conservative linked with Clintons Announce Opposition to Iraq War
Never Yet Melted » linked with Never Yet Melted »
Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular Political Blog linked with Clinton: Iraq War Is A “Big Mistake”
Keith D. Milby :: blog linked with Bill Clinton Follows the Rabbit
Michelle Malkin linked with PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DECEMBER 1998
Citizen Journal linked with Shameless
JunkYardBlog linked with Bill Clinton, December 1998
Super Fun Power Hour linked with Liar Liar Blues Dress On Fire
Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Bush: Dems Sending 'Mixed Signals'
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
6:43 pm [ Quote ]
Bush: Dems Sending ‘Mixed Signals’
President Bush escalated the debate over the Iraq war by hurling back at Democrats the worries they
7:15 pm [ Quote ]
Oh, would I love to see this picked up as a commercial on Prime time television! Like the Swift Boat Ads…do we need this now!
Let the Americans watching network news at dinner SEE and HEAR this…
7:54 pm [ Quote ]
Liar Liar Blues Dress On Fire
Either Clinton seems to either have a very short memory or he is once again proving he’s a treasonous liar. Now that he’s out of office and campaigning for his wife’s Presidential run in 2008, he feels free to “forget” about his past actions and …
8:28 pm [ Quote ]
Dearest Super Fun Power Hour,
Please leave Bill Clinton alone as he rewrites his presidential history. Doing this will only hurt him and Jimmy Carter as well, including the Dems “holder of the Mainstream Moral Compass” Teddy “neck brace” Kennedy. Oh yeah…and don’t forget the self proclaimed…and for that matter…self submitting for medals… war hero…. Mr John “I threw some one else’s medals over the fence” Kerry. Gee I guess I said too much. Ya gotta love them “I was tricked by Bush” Dems. God bless our troops and their families!
8:56 pm [ Quote ]
Bill Clinton, December 1998
In living palor….
9:10 pm [ Quote ]
Shameless
President Clinton told Arab students the US invastion of Iraq was a “mistake.” Whadda douche. The Political Teen has Exhibit A….
9:20 pm [ Quote ]
Not sure how this is supposed to defend the Iraq war going on today.
First, Clinton cites as the chief reason to go to war the fact that Iraq officially stopped cooperating with the weapons inspectors. That wasn’t the case in 2002, even though of course it can be argued that Saddam wasn’t being honest with the inspectors. Nevertheless, they were forced to leave not because Saddam kicked them out but because we were going in.
The second point is that Clinton did not invade Iraq. He used an air campaign to destroy the infrastructure that could be used to develop WMDs. I highly doubt he would have advocated invasion and I can only imagine the sort of reaction he’d get from both democrats and republicans had he said “Saddam might give WMDs to terrorists, therefore we have to invade.”
Could you honestly tell me that if Clinton had said that we must invade Iraq in order to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMDs, you would have supported him?
9:30 pm [ Quote ]
He gives the same reason you ignorant libs are yelling at Bush for.
9:48 pm [ Quote ]
“you ignorant libs”? Ok can you please point out where I was “yelling at Bush” about? I am sure it’s easy for you to assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a dirty liberal, but you know the world is far more complex than that.
10:41 pm [ Quote ]
During his second term Clinton said Saddam had WMD’s, was seeking nuclear weapons and that the only way to deal with him was thrugh regime change. Problems is, he didn’t have the guts or leadership skills to follow through.
Was Clinton lying? Every time he opens his mouth you can be 100% sure he is lying. He is incapable of telling the truth. He is a pathological liar!
He is also running for President of the world and be careful, he might make it because most of the world loves a liar!
11:06 pm [ Quote ]
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DECEMBER 1998
In living palor. He is ordering major strikes on Iraq because, in his words, it had abused its “last chance.”...
11:25 pm [ Quote ]
Bill Clinton Follows the Rabbit
11:39 pm [ Quote ]
[...] Plus, Clinton certainly didn’t think that removing Saddam from power was such a “big mistake” back in 1998. That year Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act which authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. President Clinton signed the legislation and made a speech in favor of it while he bombed Iraq four days later. Here’s the video of that speech. [...]
11:41 pm [ Quote ]
the leftists would rather if we left saddam and his henchmen to continue to rape, torture, mutilate and execute in the most brutal ways hundreds of thousands more, on top of the documented 700,000 dead already to his eternal shame (military and civilian), with the total estimate about double. but they don’t care about the numbers of brown people dying on the other side of the world (remember clinton stood by at rwanda) unless they can use it as a political tool to serve their hateful, envious, lustful, selfish ends. they had no regrets about the 100 million starved and slaughtered by their communist comrades.
leftist filth is a threat to freedom-loving peoples around the world, and it is hard to imagine a bright future for humanity when one considers just how much islamofascist, leftist, communist and tyrannical sentiment is out there.
who deserve to be hated more than leftists? next to the genocidal killers they love, there is nothing. hate them with a clear conscience, they deserve it.
12:03 am [ Quote ]
shucky-
Hey buddy…did ya have to bring up Rwanda?! It was spring of 1994 and Bill Clinton was very busy then! Busy with what you ask?! Why… talking to the leadership in Singapore to have Michael Fay’s sentence reduced. Remember? Fay comitted some vandelism on some parked cars and was facing a penalty of 6 or 8 wacks on the bare bottom (buttocks) with a bamboo cane. Oh how horrible! But thank God Bill Clinton took the time to use his Presidency and international grooveytoss to help save Fay’s white booty. Fay ended up only getting wacked 4 times thanks to our President, Bill Clinton! Rwanda…sorry but that booty caning takes priority over your day to day problems. I guess the U.N. was busy with the caning thing too. Oh well, have a nice day all you moonbats.God bless our troops
12:10 am [ Quote ]
shucky, in response to your Rwanda claim, when Bolton, the Bush appointee for the UN, was asked what he would have done anything different, responded:
“We don’t know if it was logistically possible to do anything different,”
In essence, he wouldn’t have done much if anything different. Of course I do agree that we failed at the time but ascribing that failure to ‘leftists’ (whatever that means) is downright ignorant of the real reality of the story and subsequent failure.
As far as Saddam goes, I don’t think the vast majority of people from whatever political side would want him to be in power. There certainly have been people who’ve spoken out in his defense but they are a small minority within the left. Most people do agree that of course he is a horrible man and of course nothing can justify his massacres, and if we put the Iran-Iraq war into perspective, then he is responsible to far greater number of deaths. But what did we do while those deaths were occuring? Nothing much other then selling weapons to him and having Rummy shake his hand. But that is besides the point, just because someone has issues with the President’s strategy on Iraq, that does not mean they want Saddam in power either. And while Saddam was a brutal torturer, it’s so sad to hear that torture is currently occuring in Iraq – I am sure most of you had read the report about the 173 suspected Sunni insurgents discovered being tortured and malnorished in a prison run by the Interior Ministry of Iraq – the ministry that is heavily infiltrated by the SCRI, an Iran-based Shiite militant group whose brutality is on par with that of Saddam. I certainly hope we haven’t replaced one torturer with another but it is clear at this point that simply holding elections does not make a country a democracy.
1:21 am [ Quote ]
[...] What Mr. Clinton., in fact, concluded may be seen in the video here. By Administrator Feedbacks on this entry via RSS 2.0 Please leave a Comment or discuss via Trackback! Comments Please Leave a Comment! [...]
1:31 am [ Quote ]
Clintons Announce Opposition to Iraq War
Always shameless. Never surprising.
NewsMax.com reports: “In twin moves that amount to a 180 degree reversal of their previous positions, former President Bill Clinton called the Iraq war yesterday ‘a big mistake,’ while his wife, S…
1:50 am [ Quote ]
[...] Today’s con tactic is to use video of President Clinton ordering missile strikes on Iraq that destroyed much of his WMD capacity in order to justify George Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq that has killed 2,000 more soldiers than President Clinton’s missile strikes…. that destroyed many of the WMDs that Saddam ever had. I will never understand these people, they’re just too silly. [...]
2:40 am [ Quote ]
Let’s get this straight:
December 1998—Clinton takes out Saddam’s defense and weapons systems. Republicans cry, “Wag the Dog.”
examples:
“I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time,” Lott said in a statement. “Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”
“The suspicion some people have about the president’s motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment,” Armey said in a statement. “After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons.”
July 29, 2001—Condi Rice on CNN:
“Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We’ll work with the Russians. I’m sure that we’ll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
September 2002-Drum beat of war begins: Andy Card: `From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.’’
The administration begins making exaggerated claims about Iraq’s weapons capabilities. Experts who were on the ground during inspections regime point out that 95 percent (or so) of Iraq’s weapons capabilities were destroyed through inspections and Clinton’s airstrikes. Some suspect Saddam’s chemical biological weapons programs—enabled by the Reagan and Bush I administrations—might still yield a very small threat, despite the fact that this stuff has a short shelf-life and would have degraded to the point of being useless. Despite the skepticism of members of the intelligence community and many American citizens, Cheney begins asserting “There is no doubt..”
Winter 2002-2003: MUSHROOM CLOUD! UNMANNED PLANES SPRAYING CHEMICAL WEAPONS! MUSHROOM CLOUD! VX! AHHHHHH!
March 2004—David Kay:
“I was convinced and still am convinced that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction at the time of the war,” he told the Guardian in an interview in Washington. He now believes that any weapons the Iraqis had were probably destroyed before 1998. “There were continuing clandestine activities but increasingly driven more by corruption than driven by purposeful directed weapons programmes,” argued the 63-year-old former diplomat and sleuth.
November 2005-Seven years after he completely destroyed Saddam’s military capabilities—again, to the objections of people like Trent Lott—and without the losing one American life, Bill Clinton points out what around 60% of the American people now believe: the invasion of Iraq and the loss of over 2000 American lives was not worth it. America is no more safe. We have lost the goodwill and respect of a good portion of the world. Our vice president is running around defending torture. The president if projecting another 20+ years in Iraq. The war is costing 5 bil a month. It’s begining to look like Iraq will become an annex of Iran. Reports of the Iraqi government torturing and starving to death prisoners.
And you’re trying to gotcha’ Clinton? Talk about a journey down the rabbit hole…
3:04 am [ Quote ]
You nailed it down bc2005.
I think the logic of bringing up Clinton goes something like this:
“If Clinton (and other Dems) was right in 1998, then Bush was right in 2002”.
It is obviously a completely faulty argument. First, Clinton did not allege the same things that the Bush admin alleged. And second Clinton did not argue for the same solution that the Bush admin resorted to. Third, plenty of people did actually think that Clinton exagerated the threat – including lefties, but also some Republicans.
And even if Clinton was right and claimed what Bush claims now, then how come all these Republicans were speaking out against him? Could they possibly be playing politics with America’s security? That’s certainly what the Democrats are being accused of now. Too bad both Dems and Repubs fail to see when their side plays politics but are so quick to blame the other guy. That is why I would never personally subscribe myself as a member to any political party.
3:22 am [ Quote ]
Clinton made the same claims as Bush because Bush had the same intelligence as Clinton.
Then 9/11 happened. That’s why we invaded.
Tony Blair fired the first shot in his speech on September 12 or 13th of ‘01. He declared that the nexus of WMD’s and terror groups would not be tolerated.
The United Nations/Hussein inspectior/Keystone Cops/Oil For Fraud game of hide and seek was doomed to failure.
3:57 am [ Quote ]
[...] Be sure to take a look at the Political Teen Blog to see some of the examples of the dems lies including Barbara Boxers inability to do math. Must be those California schools. What happened to that draft thing? Blogs for Bush Basils Blog [...]
4:18 am [ Quote ]
toddrundgrenisgod,
you do make a sound point. 9/11 sure changed our perception of what was going on. But do you think that before 9/11 Al-Qaeda was not trying to gain WMDs? It sure wasn’t. The fact is 9/11 was not a change in terms of the reality of the situation but rather it caused a change in our perception of it. Since the early 90s terrorists have been planning and trying to gain means of attacking America. And how did many people react (including myself) when Clinton tried to put pressure on Saddam and Afghanistan? We accused him of using that as a distraction from problems at home. Of course that is to be expected – at the time we hadn’t been hit at home so it’s easy to see how many can view the Iraq bombing as a “distraction”. Trent Lott’s statements at the time are a perfect example of this.
Then 9/11 happend and all of a suddent we felt vulnerable. Many blamed Clinton for inaction, which while justified of course, does not take into account that the same people who blame him for that, blamed him at the time for using Iraq and Afghanistan bombings as distractions. If Clinton did screw up with Lewinski perhaps he would have had more freedom to act decisively – that is his own fault, plain and simple.
4:32 am [ Quote ]
k, Clinton essentially made regime change in Iraq U.S. policy… and all these dems didn’t just make these arguments in 1998, they made them right up until the war started… so everyone needs to stop the “they said it in the 90s, not before this war” bologna.
4:38 am [ Quote ]
actually this old story that the liberal media buried talks about the UN confirming Saddam had and moved the stuff, it specifically quotes Slick Willy in 2003
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323
It’s not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist, even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]…a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for? in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world—French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it—agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today.
5:23 am [ Quote ]
interesting, semi-related note… another Dem who talked about WMDs…
Pelosi said on Nov 17. 2002:
“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”
Just catching the reairing of Cavuto, she was on and he asked her about that saying that (paraphrasing) “but you’re not part of that crowd today talking about misleading…” and her response sounded something like “no, because I didn’t support the war”... Now, I may have not heard that correctly, but that’s what it sounded like, and I don’t remember her vote, but this article I found is kind of interesting considering she’s part of the new far left nutjob movement in the party:
http://www.sfbg.com/38/16/x_oped.html
And she deferred to the White House when host Tim Russert asked a key question, “Do you think that the situation with Iraq is a distraction from the war on terrorism?”
“I don’t think it’s a distr–” Pelosi responded, then interrupted herself and started again. “I mean, any decision – I don’t question a decision of the president of the United States on his timing or the priority he gives a threat. I do say that I’m pleased that the president and the secretary of state are following the course of action that many of us supported at that same time, which was to exhaust every diplomatic remedy, to go to the U.N., to have a multilateral approach …”
A minute later in the interview, the new House minority leader proclaimed that if Bush ordered an assault on Iraq while bypassing the United Nations, “certainly we’ll support the action of the president.”
Russert pressed her: “But if the president decides to go unilaterally or with the British and the Turks without U.N. approval, you would support the president?”
“Yes,” Pelosi replied, “I would support the president.”
Just some interesting info… I recall this is very similar to John Edwards did… He straight up pulled a worse than Kerry flip flop though.
5:37 am [ Quote ]
just found a bit on the John Edwards super flip flop… Democrats everywhere should proudly frame and desplay it on their mantles….
This was the original Hawk Edwards:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/
EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.
And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.
MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway??
EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.
MATTHEWS: You believe in that?
EDWARDS: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?
EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.
So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.
MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?
EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.
I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.
And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.
MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?
EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.
He then goes on for a while about how Saddam had been trying to aquire nuclear weapons for a decade.
oh, and there’s this:
Like (on 2/24/02, six months after 9/11), “I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country”. He said (six months later on 9/12/02) “The time has come for decisive action. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability—a capability that could be less than a year away. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam’s arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to those terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of 9/11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On Sept. 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.”
and while I’m having trouble finding the exact quote where he totally flipped and the interviewing didn’t bust him like he should have… it wasn’t a secret. He was running as VP for John “We were mislead” Kerry… that was there friggin’ message. What a disgrace the Democratic party is for this whole organized effort to politicize this war, and do any and everything to get in power and to get opponents out of power. Shameful.
6:01 am [ Quote ]
bc2005 and all the other clintonistas, his “airstrikes” did NOT destroy all of Iraq’s WMD capability. Quit trying to rewrite history fellas/ladies. Did they destroy a few buildings that may have held WMDS, sure, but they didnt hold WMD’s. Can’t tell you how I know that, but I do. He is/was a liar and a fake and one of the most dangerous men to every have been in office. As a 20 year current military member, and one who has been over there three different times, I wholly support the decision to invade. Has everything run smoothly? No, it hasn’t. For you history buffs, show me one military action of this magnitude that has run exactly as planned, you can’t. Since unfortunately our military is made up of people, and people do make mistakes, some mistakes in the implementation of policy have occured. That’s life, it happens. It is well documented that Saddam was waiting for the end of sanctions and he would have been more than ready to resume his ways. I sure do get tired of you panty waisted (sorry ladies) citizens and your lack of fortitude.
6:15 am [ Quote ]
Clinton On Iraq: Good Idea, Bad Idea, Etc…. (Updated)
Please help me out here, one of us is confused.
7:15 am [ Quote ]
[...] President Clinton, that is. Or maybe he actually told the truth. Let’s see… that would make President Bush a truth-teller as well. [...]
8:31 am [ Quote ]
Liar, Liar, Liar,
The Political Teen has the video of the President Lying
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has …
8:51 am [ Quote ]
[...] 1. Did Clinton lie? In 1998, he ordered major strikes on Iraq because, in his words, it had abused its “last chance.” Hm. His last chance expired over 3 years before we went to war with Iraq? Not to hear the Dems lie about it! But go see for yourself – Political Teen has the video. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. [...]
9:15 am [ Quote ]
Bill clinton
just another stupid wrinkle face sob who
figures he did not f—- america up enough as president so he is out here running all over the country trying to get his stupid wrinkle as old lady the white house for what so that he can rape some more young interns.
9:30 am [ Quote ]
I swear by the action of the democrats now days that they along with the un was in the pockets of sad dam insane, the food for oil deal that,s why john kerry said that if he became c c he would put the us military under the command of the united nothing imagine that america military under the corrupt command of the un, what a drifty mf he is john kerry
and some people voted for that stupid sob that is scary as hell.
9:32 am [ Quote ]
Did clinton lie
did he every tell the truth not if he open his mouth.
10:27 am [ Quote ]
[...] Hmmm, took a walk over to the Political Teen to see the Clinton video everyone is talking about. I couldn’t get it to run, but I didn’t really need to; I DO remember the event. I DO remember that President Clinton was adamant that Saddam had run out of chances. [...]
12:29 pm [ Quote ]
Centurion86: Being a member of a military family, having served in war, as did my brothers, father, mother and eldest sister, I have a special appreciation for your service to the this country and I pray for God’s blessings on you and your family. Thank you for making the sacrifice and being willing to risk your own life that we might all enjoy the blessings of liberty!
The rest of your posting was excellent. Thank you!
1:01 pm [ Quote ]
The rest of your posting was excellent. Thank you!
Ditto.
1:14 pm [ Quote ]
Liar, liar, pants on fire (pt 1)
And so begins what I hope to be a regular feature to this site. If Bush lied, then by God, so did these other individuals. Where better to start than with the Grand Master of Lies: Earlier today, I ordered…
2:43 pm [ Quote ]
Bill Clinton on WMD’s
Don’t want to take the word of a former UNSCOM weapons inspector about WMD’s in Iraq? How ‘bout Bill Clinton then? Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or…
2:52 pm [ Quote ]
December 16th, 1998
“Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,”
“Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,”
December 19th, 1998
‘Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote),’
Desert Fox to cover Whitehouse F**cks
5:32 pm [ Quote ]
haven’t read this yet, but was linked to it in a post from one of Michelle Malkin’s guest bloggers…. looks interesting
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20154
6:54 pm [ Quote ]
Centurion86,
my apology, I didn’t say that Clinton destroyed ALL of Saddam’s WMD capabilities, that’s certainly not the case. I was only refering to the method of Clinton’s choice (airstrikes), as far as it’s success, well that’s another question.
11:06 pm [ Quote ]
Robot,
My main reference was to the blathering dolt bc2005. I didn’t notice you saying that, sorry for not reading your posting closely enough, I was seeing red after the other one. For those who thanked me, you are most welcome. We in the military do appreciate the sentiments shown by most of the people in this great land. It just galls me to see the Demorats and Rhinos calling the President a liar and that he conned us into Iraq. I do not believe they have a clue what that does to some of the younger troops who can be easily influenced by these so called people in the know. Makes it tough to keep them focused on the task at hand sometimes. But rest assured, most of the troops I see coming in these days are fine young Americans. A few bad apples, but aren’t they everywhere? Most importantly, keep looking to the Lord for guidance and pray for our leaders, even the stupid ones!
11:39 am [ Quote ]
What DMD’s?
Lifelike Pundits runs a good bit of an interview by a former UN weapons inspector. I think it does a good job of undercutting the “Bush lied, there were not WMD’s!” mantra. It’s a lengthy read, but check it out….
5:11 pm [ Quote ]
Centurion86-
First of all, my purpose is not to defend Clinton or his legacy; the fact is, I didn’t vote for the guy. My point, if it was not clear enough, was to point out that the argument presented in the original post was based on faulty logic and a willful ignorance of the facts. I did not claim that Clinton destroyed ALL of Iraq’s weapons and defense programs, and that’s really beside the point. What I did point out that the fact that no weapons or evidence of weapons have been found (according the President Bush and David Kay)would seem to suggest estimates coming from former weapons inspectors and intelligence analysts that most—perhaps as much as 95%—of Saddam’s weapons capabilities were destroyed as the result of airstrikes and sactions were correct. Just to remind you, over six hundred cruise missles and a greater number of air raids, targeting at least 100 military targets, were launched by President Clinton in 1998-1999. The purpose of Operation Desert Fox was to “degrade” Iraq’s weapons capabilities, and “Clinton’s War,” in retrospect, appears to have been effective. Again, Condi Rice pointed out in 2001, because of the policies of the Bush I and Clinton administrations, Saddam “does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.? As for your claim—based on some secret information that you can’t tell us about—that you know these sites didn’include weapons facilities: I really don’t find that compelling. In fact, I think you’re full of it. I can image no reason why you wouldn’t offer tangible evidence in support of your claim if you actually had it.
Instead of attacking me personally and implying that you have a greater right to speak on this issue because you are or were a member of the military, why don’t you respond to my claims instead? I am also a citizen of this great land and a member of a military family. You speak of sentiments, but my post, in substance, did not deal with sentiments but with facts. So what do you make of Condi Rice’s statement? And the fact that Reagan and Bush I enabled Saddam to produce biological and chemical weapons? And what the hell was Andrew Card talking about? And these claims about Saddam reconstituting a nuclear weapons program? And I might add to this one more to all of you going on about the oil-for-food program: Why was Halliburton doing business with Iraq through foriegn subsidiaries during the sanctins period and openly advocating that sanctions against Iraq, Iran, and Syria should be lifted?
As for your claim that people who call President Bush a liar—which I did not—aren’t aware of the effects that this might have on “younger troops who can be easily influenced by these so called people in the know,” I really don’t think you’re giving these young people enough credit. They are free to consider all the available information and make up their own minds. Your suggestion that they don’t have the capacity to think for themselves suggests a lack of respect on your part for the average enlisted man or woman. I too believe that these are fine young Americans, but you won’t find me wrapping myself in their mantle or questioning their capacity for judgement. For all you young folks in the military out there, are you really so incapable of judgement that you need a lifer speaking for you? You know as well as I do how enlisted folks bitch about their superiors, these 20+ year guys, especially the one’s who treat them like idiots. If you want to point fingers at people who are demoralizing the troups, I’d suggest you look to folks like Donald Rumsfeld who decided to “do Iraq” with too few troops, then sent these guys in without enough armor and support they needed to secure the country and get the job done.
Here are the facts: Iraq is a fiasco. Yes, Centurion86, mistakes “have occured,” but I see very little reason to put it at the feet of people in the military, as you do. The blame for the pre- and post-war mistakes should be layed sqarely at the feet of our leaders in the White House and the Pentagon. The Republican party used to the party of accountability. I just don’t see this anymore. And don’t ask me to defend the position of Democrats who voted to give President Bush the ability to use military force against Saddam as a last resort (yeah, right). These folks bowed to political pressure. I’m glad they’re coming around now and admitting—just as many people from Bush I’s adminstration have publically admitted—that this “war” (which lacked a declaration of war) was forced on the American public by leaders who were willing to do anything—yes, including lying and using the Iraq as a political issue during the elections—to make it happen. And before you attack me for being out of the mainstream on this one, every poll I’ve read in the last month or so suggests that a majority of the American people have absolutely no faith in the honesty of our President.
Finally, this wasn’t a problem with “implimentation.” This has nothing to do with the men and women fighting the war on the ground, as you suggest. The bad apples here are at the top of the tree. I’m also a student of history, and I don’t remember reading about American troops being blown up in the streets at a rate of 2-3 (or 4 or 5) a day 2+ years after we declared “Mission Accomplished” in World Wars I and II. Instead of personally attacking me, imagining me in panties, and hating on Clinton, why don’t you just face the facts. Until then, do the world a favor and stop drooling over your keyboard writing screeds cribbed from Rush Limbaugh.
8:28 pm [ Quote ]
The liebraels are in their own zone it is the spin less zone. they run and hide something that the us military will never do. because if the military would run with these chicken liver sob , their would be no america.
8:42 pm [ Quote ]
some comments on here I can tell that the person making them has no military service dont know a dam thing about war or wars dont have a dam clue about how to fight a war, so you need to shut the hell up , vietnam vet, with a son in iraq who is kicking the terrorist ass,
and the troops will leave iraq when we finish killing all the terrorist so that they dont come to america and cut your head off, got it fools. former vietnam tunnel rat.
8:50 pm [ Quote ]
Brick: As another Vietnam Vet with a grandson and nephew fighting there now, I can only say – AMEN!