I'll make two points in response to that.
1. I find myself questioning the sanity of any Freeper who cites Bill Clinton as a reliable measure of why the U.S. went to war in Iraq.
2. One of the most baffling aspects of the run-up to the war in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 was the way so many so-called "conservatives" were willing to accept the same silly "weapons of mass destruction" mantra that was nothing more than a deliberate campaign by the Clinton administration had used to garner political support among soccer moms with double-digit IQs.
If anyone has any doubts about either of these points, just ask yourself why the Clinton administration suddenly determined that Iraq represented some kind of major threat to the U.S. in the fall of 1998 after it became clear that Bill Clinton was going to be impeached.
Then ask yourself why those "legitimate security concerns" suddenly vanished in early 1999 -- only to be replaced by "mass graves in the Balkans" as the primary foreign policy concern of that sh!tbag administration.
if Saddam wasn't building WMD why did he send the head of his nuclear program to Niger to buy nuclear materials?
The three words that occur to me as I read that are "tappa-tappa-tappa." Of course, it may be that the reason you're on the wrong side of this is because you're logic-challenged. Let's review: Ron Paul said that the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act had no legitimate security concerns in it. First, that is a flat out lie. Second, I didn't say that Clinton was a good measure of anything, just that he advanced a bill which cited numerous national security reasons to change the regime in Iraq.
Ron Paul lied.
I told the truth.
You put words in my mouth.
One of the most baffling aspects of the run-up to the war in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 was the way so many so-called "conservatives" were willing to accept the same silly "weapons of mass destruction" mantra that was nothing more than a deliberate campaign by the Clinton administration had used to garner political support among soccer moms with double-digit IQs.
Well then, surely there must be plenty of evidence of at least 2 or three of the following things:
1. Evidence from 1998 of reputable foreign policy officials and commentators saying, "What the heck? There aren't any WMDs being developed in Iraq! What's Clinton gassing on about." Especially evident would be conservatives in Congress saying, "All the foreign intel agencies tell us Iraq is clean. This is more lying."
2. Evidence that the U.S. stood alone in the WMD assessment at that time and in 2002-2003.
3. Evidence that the President relied only on the 1998 Clinton intel to make a decision about Iraq.
4. Evidence that the President lied about WMDs.
So please, share some of that mountain of evidence with me.
If anyone has any doubts about either of these points, just ask yourself why the Clinton administration suddenly determined that Iraq represented some kind of major threat to the U.S. in the fall of 1998 after it became clear that Bill Clinton was going to be impeached.
OK, let me edit that a bit and see what you think:
"If anyone has any doubts about either of these points, just ask yourself why the Clinton administration suddenly determined that Iraq represented some kind of major threat to the U.S. in the fall of August, 1998 after it became clear that Bill Clinton Monica's testimony was going to be impeached front page news."
By your logic, Osama was a made-up clinton wag-the-dog threat, too. Also note that Bill Clinton made his "Iraq has WMDs" speech on 17 Feb, 1998. It might have been for dog-wagging purposes too, but it wasn't in the fall and it wasn't a phantom, it was just him looking around for a distraction and lighting on something that would work. What else was he going to do, attack France?
Then ask yourself why those "legitimate security concerns" suddenly vanished in early 1999 -- only to be replaced by "mass graves in the Balkans" as the primary foreign policy concern of that sh!tbag administration
Quick...other than the B-2s and F-117s, how many fighter squadrons deployed from the US to Europe to participate in the Kosovo bombing? Your question seems to assume we couldn't intimidate Saddam and bomb the Serbs, and it seems to assume that a lib like Bill would never fire a few missiles at saddam and figure his job was done. Both are reality-challenged.