PRESIDENT CLINTON VIDEO, December 16, 1998 Sadaam has nuclear arms, poison gas/bio weapons.

PBS.org ^ | February 7, 2004 | the eagle has landed

[TheEaglehasLanded]

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening. 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.

[thoughtomator]

No, this is just to demonstrate the complete hypocrisy of the Left in pushing the "Bush Lied!" line.

The anti-war Right, on the other hand, can be ignored as curmudgeonly September 10thers.

[Michael.SF.]

I would agree 100% with her Shrillness on that issue.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I just built this set of links:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

!

Some serious reading:

PRESIDENT CLINTON VIDEO, December 16, 1998 Sadaam has nuclear arms, poison gas/bio weapons.

Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV - On the Iraq Resolution - October 10, 2002

Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq | October 09, 2002 |

Larry Elder: Were we misled? (about Iraq's WMD)

[SunkenCiv]

Iraq Minister Says Saddam Wmd Carefully Hidden

[GOPJ]

bump

[jmstein7]

BUMP!

[laotzu]

"Is this the best we've got? Clinton did it too? That's our best argument?"

Well said. My respects.

[Sacajaweau]

And the first hit on the Trade Center was when?

And how many times could we have picked up Usama?

And who was the politician's wife who was behind airplane security when 9-11 occurred?

And which party "established" regime change as a necessity for Iraq?

And which party "missed" North Korean proliferation?

The do nothing of the past administration set the stage for George W. Bush.

I thank God that Gore did not become President. I do not believe they ever would have gone into Afghanistan.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Here is the problem. Let's say that POTUS comes out and says all of this. Let's say that because of this Kerry looks bad and the RATS know that Dean cannot win. What will happen?

There is only one solution and it is the most dangerous of all. The RATS will put up Hillary. She is the only candidate that even has a faint chance of beating Bush in November. The administration fears that she will be recruited once one of these yahoos faulters.

We keep seeing Clintoons work in progress. First with Dean, Liberman with Gore and the stuff about Kerry and China. From all of this only one name hasn't been brought up. Why?

I see this as a Whitehouse, Clinton battle and both sides know it. I said it before and I will say it again, this election has Hillary's name all over it. She cannot wait until 2008 and it is too early in the campaign cycle for Bush to go balls to the wall and start hammering RATS.

I think Dean quickened the process and was shot down early for a reason. All Dean has to say to Kerry is, "Tell us about the book, your voting record against everything military, your record with special interests and while we are on the subject, what about the medal incident?" But Dean shut up also.

This stinks to high heaven.

[CommandoFrank]

Great post with plenty of ammo. Too bad our 'chicken' Republican leaders ignore these facts. Posting them here is like preaching to the choir; it won't change anyones mind. It needs to be out for all to see.

[CommandoFrank]

I don't understand either why the Republicans aren't playing all the clips,

Because they're whooses... Ever hear of them talking about Salmon Pak; nope. And they won't... This list could go on but I don't think it's necessary here on FR.

I just don't understand it. It's very frustrating to know they have the ammo but won't use it. I guess what they need is a gun.

It's like they enjoy defeat at every opportunity. Cheer up, if defeat is what the Republicans are looking for, they're damn sure headed for it right now.

Maybe they're eaten up with the phrase 'Loose lips sink ships'.

Whooses, all of them!

[nutmeg]

Blast from the past ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[CommandoFrank]

Before I get flamed for my post #31, I want to add two things:

1 - I feel much better now, got it off my chest.

2 - I'm probably wrong and are just being impatient...

Memo to self: 'Cool it, man'

[Political Junkie Too]

Is it just me or is the media moving the goalposts again?

It sounds like they are now referring to not finding stockpiles of WMDs, not just WMDs. I'd say that the discovery earlier this week of a 7 pound block of cyanide salt in a known Iraqi poison expert's safehouse could be a WMD.

So, I guess we're looking for stockpiles, now? Is a stockpile larger than a cache, like when we keep finding caches of conventional weapons?

-PJ

[Coleus]

I'm not surprised, wasn't it Clinton who coined the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and bombed Iraq a few times when the heat was on during Monicagate and the Impeachment?

He almost started WWIII when he bombed the China Embassy in Yugoslavia.

[CommandoFrank]

stockpiles

I hadn't hear about that. You are right about moving the goalpost.

[Political Junkie Too]

I just reread the transcript of the Meet The Press interview, and it looks like President Bush was the first to use the word "stockpile." He may have himself inadvertantly scored an "own goal" if this phraseology gets picked up by the mainstream.

-PJ

[CommandoFrank]

Shhhhh...

[nutmeg]

bttt

[Tabi Katz]

Of course everyone believed Sadaam had WMD's, I still believe they are hidden somewhere.

I agree, and I'm surprised we're not focusing more attention on Syria as a very likely hiding place. We don't find them where we expected them, so we just write it off as an intelligence failure? We know Saddam hadthese weapons, and the inspection team wasn't able to prove they'd been destroyed. Did they just evaporate into thin air? Why didn't Saddam welcome the inspectors with open arms (no pun intended) if he had nothing to hide?