It was Clinton's fault we didnt find WMD's in Iraq!

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

It was Clinton's fault we didnt find WMD's in Iraq!

Post by Voronwë »

You know it wasn't Bush's fault he lied about the WMDs. If it wasnt for the Clinton administration's policy of containment, they very well may have been developing WMDs in Iraq. How many mistakes of the Clinton years can Bush be held accountable for!>!!?!!!?!?!?
The New York Times wrote: WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 — American intelligence agencies failed to detect that Iraq's unconventional weapons programs were in a state of disarray in recent years under the increasingly erratic leadership of Saddam Hussein, the C.I.A.`s former chief weapons inspector said in an interview late Saturday.

The inspector, David A. Kay, who led the government's efforts to find evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs until he resigned on Friday, said the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did not realize that Iraqi scientists had presented ambitious but fanciful weapons programs to Mr. Hussein and had then used the money for other purposes.

Dr. Kay also reported that Iraq attempted to revive its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2000 and 2001, but never got as far toward making a bomb as Iran and Libya did.
...
But in general, Dr. Kay said, the C.I.A. and other agencies failed to recognize that Iraq had all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or biological weapons after the first Persian Gulf war, in 1991.

....

Dr. Kay said that based on his team's interviews with Iraqi scientists, reviews of Iraqi documents and examinations of facilities and other materials, the administration was also almost certainly wrong in its prewar belief that Iraq had any significant stockpiles of illicit weapons.

"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," Dr. Kay said. "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on.

"I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's, the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated."

....

He added that Iraq did make an effort to restart its nuclear weapons program in 2000 and 2001, but that the evidence suggested that the program was rudimentary at best and would have taken years to rebuild, after being largely abandoned in the 1990's. "There was a restart of the nuclear program," he said. "But the surprising thing is that if you compare it to what we now know about Iran and Libya, the Iraqi program was never as advanced," Dr. Kay said.

....

Dr. Kay said he believed that Iraq was a danger to the world, but not the same threat that the Bush administration publicly detailed.

"We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq," he said. "And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country — and no central control."


....

Dr. Kay added that there was now a consensus within the United States intelligence community that mobile trailers found in Iraq and initially thought to be laboratories for biological weapons were actually designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons, or perhaps to produce rocket fuel. While using the trailers for such purposes seems bizarre, Dr. Kay said, "Iraq was doing a lot of nonsensical things" under Mr. Hussein.

...

Dr. Kay said there was also no conclusive evidence that Iraq had moved any unconventional weapons to Syria, as some Bush administration officials have suggested.

....


its a long article, and i'm not sure if this guy is falling on his sword or what, but there arent, weren't, and won't be WMDs.

So waht Voro, that's last years lie....

Au contraire!!
George W. Bush in the State of the Union 2004 wrote:. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictatator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.
Shocking, the President of the United States standing in the well of Congress, and blatantly lieing to the American people about how he intends to spend 0.5-0.75 Trillion dollars.

so let me get this straight....

if Iraq was eliminating the chemical stockpiles, then maybe they weren't doing the following:
Bush same link as above wrote: Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations
so let's go through our war justification checklist...
User avatar
Aabidano
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4861
Joined: July 19, 2002, 2:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Florida

Post by Aabidano »

I don't think it was so much a matter of downsizing the stockpiles, as one of the weapons decaying and Iraq being unable to maintain them.

Non-conventional weapons have short shelf life (5 years or less) and a large upkeep cost, requiring maintenance infrastructure Iraq longer had after the first gulf war.

Just as the original cheif weapons inspector said after he quit.
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
User avatar
Forthe
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1719
Joined: July 3, 2002, 4:15 pm
XBL Gamertag: Brutus709
Location: The Political Newf

Post by Forthe »

It amazes me that lying about a blowjob seems to be worst than lying about the justification for war that has killed thousands of people.

8)
All posts are personal opinion.
My opinion may == || != my guild's.
"All spelling mistakes were not on purpose as I dont know shit ." - Torrkir
User avatar
Arborealus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3417
Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
Contact:

Post by Arborealus »

Forthe wrote:It amazes me that lying about a blowjob seems to be worst than lying about the justification for war that has killed thousands of people.

8)
I'm of the Eddie Izzard school of thinking on lying about BJs...That should be like Purgery in the 453rd degree.

Though once you are caught redhanded, or penised as it were, it is incumbent that you fess up and rate the indiscretion and brag (where applicable).
User avatar
Marbus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2378
Joined: July 4, 2002, 2:21 am
Contact:

Post by Marbus »

LOL... just ONE MORE REASON Bush does not need a second term...
User avatar
Krurk
Gets Around
Gets Around
Posts: 188
Joined: July 7, 2002, 9:40 pm

Post by Krurk »

Forthe wrote:It amazes me that lying about a blowjob seems to be worst than lying about the justification for war that has killed thousands of people.

8)
Two words

Republican congress

Bush could have an orgy in the oval office with Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie and then buy his wife a 4 million dollar ring to make amends. Congress wouldn't give a shit.
User avatar
Cartalas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4364
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: Kyoukan's Mouth

Post by Cartalas »

Forthe wrote:It amazes me that lying about a blowjob seems to be worst than lying about the justification for war that has killed thousands of people.

8)
Off your soapbox boy, as they keep digging up mass graves thats all the jusrification I need.
User avatar
Arborealus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3417
Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
Contact:

Post by Arborealus »

Cartalas wrote:
Forthe wrote:It amazes me that lying about a blowjob seems to be worst than lying about the justification for war that has killed thousands of people.

8)
Off your soapbox boy, as they keep digging up mass graves thats all the jusrification I need.
/em looks at little bighorn and wounded knee...
User avatar
Forthe
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1719
Joined: July 3, 2002, 4:15 pm
XBL Gamertag: Brutus709
Location: The Political Newf

Post by Forthe »

Cartalas wrote:
Forthe wrote:It amazes me that lying about a blowjob seems to be worst than lying about the justification for war that has killed thousands of people.

8)
Off your soapbox boy, as they keep digging up mass graves thats all the jusrification I need.
So your response to finding mass graves is create more mass graves?
All posts are personal opinion.
My opinion may == || != my guild's.
"All spelling mistakes were not on purpose as I dont know shit ." - Torrkir
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

To Cartalas, an Iraqi farting would be proof of WMD and justification good enough!
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Brotha »

Forthe wrote:So your response to finding mass graves is create more mass graves?
No, it's to do something about it to prevent it from happening again.

Someone find me a quote where Blix says Saddam adhered to all of his demands and was fully cooperating. Good luck. All we have to do is remember back to the debacle of trying to interview a fucking scientist outside of Iraq and not have their conversations taped, etc. If Saddam had nothing to hide, why did he do this? And something that was in the Kay report that often seems to be overlooked is that Saddam was without a doubt building long-range missles that were a blatant violation of UN resolutions. And yes, there was evidence found of biological progams, although I'll admit it wasn't much.

A quote from the NYTimes article:
"I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's, the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated."
So that means not just Bush, but Clinton was completely wrong. As Kay said, the majority of the blame lies with the intelligence community, not Bush.

The way I see it is this: Saddam was given a final chance after chance after chance after chance was given to fully cooperate and bare his soul- he didn't so he faced the "serious consquences."
User avatar
Sionistic
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3092
Joined: September 20, 2002, 10:17 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Piscataway, NJ

Post by Sionistic »

What I'm trying to understand is why didnt we back up the inspectors instead of changing the whole regime. This whole thing makes the US look like we know and call out all the problems, but we have no solutions.
User avatar
Vetiria
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1226
Joined: July 3, 2002, 4:50 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Decatur, IL

Post by Vetiria »

The AP had a count of 3240 civilian casualties in Iraq between March 20 and April 20, which was only a count of half of the hospitals in Iraq.

How many people did Saddam kill in his 30 years compared to that one month?
User avatar
Marbus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2378
Joined: July 4, 2002, 2:21 am
Contact:

Post by Marbus »

I'm sure a lot more than that but I can't find it right now...

This gives a little clue as to some of what was going on... I don't like being lied to but I can't say removing that bastard from power was a bad thing for the human race in general either...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune ... 72969.html

Marb

Edit found this too... looks to be pretty rightwing but I would assume the numbers are somewhat correct as they quote other sources.

http://usresolve.org/saddam-husseins-atrocities.php
Last edited by Marbus on January 26, 2004, 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

You know, if the initial deal was to go in because he was a horrible tyrant, then that argument might hold some water now. But to argue now that "We found no WMDs and no proof of terrorist ties, but we found massgraves! It is all justified!" is just silly.

Bottom line is: Bush fucked up with his argument for the war, and the fact that he is STILL trying to cover his ass with those arguments now is pathetic.

Oh and if you are looking to stop massgraves, you will find a hell of a lot more of them in certain other countries.
User avatar
Marbus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2378
Joined: July 4, 2002, 2:21 am
Contact:

Post by Marbus »

Kelshara, I'm not defending him :) However almost all my posts last year for the war did concern the torture etc... along with the WMD. For me one wasn't enough but I do think the SOB needs face his own people's judgement like Mussolini perferably but that is just my opinion.
User avatar
Aabidano
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4861
Joined: July 19, 2002, 2:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Florida

Post by Aabidano »

Kelshara wrote:Bottom line is: Bush fucked up with his argument for the war, and the fact that he is STILL trying to cover his ass with those arguments now is pathetic.
If he'd 'fessed up as having made a mistake on the justification for the war it wouldn't be too bad.

Just like Clinton and his blowjob.
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

Marb the post wasn't really directed against you :) Was more of like an in general post.

If he fessed up it would improve it somewhat, but the thing is: He KEEPS harping on the damn WMDs! That just makes it wors imo, and by now it is too damn late to fess up. His State of the Union took care of that. And no offense, but some of us argued that his reasons were BS before he went in and I honestly believe even he knew that back then.. however, the WMD goal would be way easier to sell to Americans than "I want him gone".
User avatar
Mplor
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 429
Joined: January 7, 2003, 4:54 am
Location: UK

Post by Mplor »

The excuse, "Well, the CIA told Clinton that Iraq had WMDs, too," only further undercuts the neocon doctrine of military pre-emption. If we can't rely on our intelligence, then how can we justify starting wars based on flawed projections of future threats?

The fact that Clinton was fed the same bad intel yet didn't actually mistakenly invade another country only makes Bush look worse.

p.s. Brotha, that avatar cracks me up! :lol:
The Boney King of Nowhere.
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

Vetiria wrote:How many people did Saddam kill in his 30 years compared to that one month?
How many weapons did America supply to Saddam in those 30 years?
How many chemical weapons did America give to Saddam to kill people with in those 30 years?
How many Iranians died by American weapons in the Iran/Iraq war?

Fucking ignorant hypocrite.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
User avatar
Vetiria
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1226
Joined: July 3, 2002, 4:50 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Decatur, IL

Post by Vetiria »

Not everything got restored apparently :P

Repost:

Cart said something about Miir, I had cleared up that quote had come out wrong, Miir said something about Cart, and Cart returned with some unreadable drivel.

Ok, everyone's back up to speed on this thread!
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

and Cart returned with some unreadable drivel.
Duh? :lol:
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

Forthe wrote:It amazes me that lying about a blowjob seems to be worst than lying about the justification for war that has killed thousands of people.

8)
Clinton was on the witness stand and under oath when he lied. I don't see Bush on the stand yet. If he does and lies, then he should be impeached.


I think the U.S. government knows that there are WMD's out there. I believe that they know that they exist because they provided or sold them to Iraq. I don't think they will ever find anything, unless someone in the know steps forward to show them exactly where. I think our government is corrupt and wastefull and will do anything for good poll results....no matter which party affiliation. I think Bill Clinton was a liar...and think Bush is very misinformed by his advisors and cabinet. I think that war sucks....yet sometimes you have to do it. I think that no matter how much I would ever disagree with us being in a location for a war or a conflict, I would never disrespect the soldiers who went to do what they were told to do.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Zaelath »

Agreed he lied under oath, but I always thought the larger question raised by that was "Who the fuck is Kenneth Starr to be allowed to ask if consenting adults engaged in sex?". This trial should have been held in Salem.
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Brotha »

I don't understand this argument that so many people make that Bush and co. changed their reasons for the war several times. Just look back at the Congressional Resolution authorizing war and what's in it. Quotes from parts of it:
JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Those're just a couple of quotes from it. Yes, WMD was the main case we made to the UN Security Council, but there were other factors involved all along.

According to David Kay Iraq was blatantly violating resolutions. Read this in a CNN article:
He said inspectors have found hundreds of cases of Iraqi officials concealing from U.N. weapons inspectors evidence that placed Iraq in clear violation of the world body's resolutions.
And I don't see how you can point to the civilians that were killed during the war and somehow say that in anyway compares to what Saddam Hussein did. 300,000 are expected to be found in mass graves- who knows how many of them were tortured? 2 million died from wars he started. 21 million people were denied basic rights, millions of children were malnurished because he wouldn't adhere to simple resolutions. Now, because of us, those people are free, the standard of living will rise, there will be no more mass graves, and Iraq will prosper.

Yes during the cold war era we helped a lot of terrible regimes, but I think we have come to our senses and instead of condemning us people should be applauding us. Frankly the amount of hypocracy going on from the "international community" is enough to make me puke. We removed a dictator who for 12 years violated a dozen resolutions and repressed his own people exponentially more brutally than Sharon has ever done to the Palestinians- and WE'RE the bad guys? It's ok for people to disagree with us, but given the facts of the matter it's preposterous to compare Bush with Hitler, say we're turning into an empire, trying to steal everyone's oil, etc. etc. But by all means continue to point out how terrible we are because the lights flickers out every now and then in Baghdad, while overlooking the fact that the same people aren't having to watch their family members be tortured and thrown carelessly into a shallow grave in the middle of no where.

After 12 years and all the chances, we finally realized that the Iraq problem wasn't going to go away until Saddam did. It's as simple as that.
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

There was no Iraq problem other than the one the greedy neocon warhawks concocted in their tiny brains so they could wage their little oil conquest. Hussein's military post gulf war was abysmal and it was abundantly clear that he had no weapons of mass destruction.

If what you're saying is trur then it's pretty sad when by myself I am smarter than the entire united states intelligence network.
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Brotha »

kyoukan wrote:There was no Iraq problem other than the one the greedy neocon warhawks concocted in their tiny brains so they could wage their little oil conquest. Hussein's military post gulf war was abysmal and it was abundantly clear that he had no weapons of mass destruction.

If what you're saying is trur then it's pretty sad when by myself I am smarter than the entire united states intelligence network.
Throughout the Clinton administration Saddam Hussein was considered one of our biggest threats as well. Were the neocons secretly pulling his strings? And the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act...all Perle's doing?

And what if we had lifted sanctions a year ago and said "well Saddam you're violating all of these resolutions but you don't have any huge stockpiles of banned weapons so I guess we'll just give you the benefit of the doubt here." Can you honestly say Saddam would have learned has his lesson, been impressed by our generosity, quit violating resolutions, and never pursued his WMD programs again? Give me a break. You may live in a fantasy world where it's ok for the most powerful dictator in the Arab world who has a vitriolic hatred for the west and the US in particular to do whatever the fuck he wants but thankfully we have people in power who have a little more sense than that.

Have you ever stopped and wondered why exactly you feel the need to defend and make excuses all the time for someone like Saddam, who is everything you've accused Bush of being multiplied by a hundred?
User avatar
Xyun
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2566
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:03 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Xyun »

Have you ever stopped and wondered why exactly you feel the need to defend and make excuses all the time for someone like Saddam, who is everything you've accused Bush of being multiplied by a hundred?
The fact is we invaded Iraq the same way they invaded Quwait in 91, and for the same reason, to liberate the Quwaiti's!!

You confuse attacking bush with defending saddam, but you can't be blamed, it's not your fault you're a brainwashed ignoramous.
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
User avatar
Marbus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2378
Joined: July 4, 2002, 2:21 am
Contact:

Post by Marbus »

Agree Zaelath
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

Exactly what excuses am I making for Saddam Hussein?

No, I really want to hear this.
Post Reply