WARNING: Gathering WMD storm a crock. See what Clinton told nation in 1998...

CNN AllPolitics.com archives ^ | 6/2/03 (from 12/98 speech) | Bill Clinton

[Wolfstar]

Before anyone goes too far down the road of trying to bring down either the Bush or Blair administrations over questions about where the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are, a short detour into recent history is in order.

CLINTON: Good evening.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[dirtboy]

Like how do we know for sure that from 1998-2001, Saddam *didn't* disarm?

We didn't. But under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, Saddam was supposed to destroy all WMDs and provide documentation to verify the destruction. He failed repeatedly to do so. Recall that even the French believed he still had them.

[Wolfstar]

Bill Clinton DID attack Iraq in December 1998. He just didn't bother to follow through. His sound and fury was empty rhetoric and empty gestures. George W. Bush, on the other hand, means exactly what he says and follows through on what he undertakes.

[Bigg Red]

You do not seem to understand the Left. It does not matter what Bill Clinton said or did. They (the Left) know that what matters is what they can make people believe today.

+++
Right you are, Michael. Let's move on.

[Bigg Red]

Thanks for reminding us of what liars and doubletalkers the Rats are.

[Wolfstar]

...but it just feels dirty to use arguments made from the man who finds an angle on is.

Understood. However, the point of this post was not to use Clinton's arguments, but to remind everyone that the entire senior level of the Clinton administration said Hussein had WMD, that they were a threat to the U.S. and the world, and that the U.S. needed to take aggressive action to eliminate that threat.

Above all, the point is that the United States Senate and President Bill Clinton set in motion regime change in Iraq as the policy of the United States government. But where Clinton failed to follow through on all his sound and fury, President George W. Bush took constructive action.

[Bigg Red]

Thanks for the flag, girlfriend.

[Wolfstar]

Perhaps because it was a Clinton speech, it didn't disappear from the archives. I did a Google search and found it that way. Delicious irony that it comes from a CNN site, isn't it. This way, no one so inclined can say it was doctored in any way.

[Bigg Red]

There is another speech from February 17, 1998, on the CNN archives that also belies the current Rat position. Some Freeper posted it in February of this year.

[Wolfstar]

GREAT supplement to the printed version. Thank you very much for posting it.

[Wolfstar]

Genuine thanks for the clarification. You are right, of course.

[Wolfstar]

Luis, two Senate committees are preparing some kind of joint "investigation" into why no WMD have been found to date in Iraq. Sen. John Warner, a Republican and chairman of one of the committees involved, has already huffed and puffed about how "America's credibility is at stake." My outrage over this development knows no bounds, because such hearings are the Democrats fondest wet dream of the moment.

[Wolfstar]

Terrific image, Grampa Dave and Registered.

[Grampa Dave]

This has to be one of Registered's top creations. It really shows how whacked out the lunatic libs are with their whining re WMDS, while ignoring the mass graves being found.

[Wolfstar]

With respect, Agape, MY premise in posting this thread was and remains this:

• In overthrowing Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush implemented long-standing U.S. policy.
• That policy was established by the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
• The 1998 Act was in response to the fact that Saddam Hussein had been obstructing UN weapons inspectors for years, culminating in his throwing them out of Iraq in 1998.
• In December 1998, Clinton acted on the law he had signed that October, and took aggressive military action against Iraq. However, his actions were brief and he failed to follow through.
• In the post-9/11 (and post anthrax attacks) world, President Bush correctly decided that the games the UN, U.S., and Britain had been playing with Hussein for 12 long years were just too dangerous to continue. So he did what Clinton failed to do — follow through on the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.
• ALL of the above actions were taken because the many and varied decision-makers involved believed that Hussein had WMD and that he might someday use them for terroristic purposes. They not only had solid intelligence from defectors, but they had Hussein's own actions and declarations to base their beliefs on.
• In the four years (1998-2002) after Hussein threw out the inspectors and before they returned late last year, did he disarm on his own? His own actions argue against that being the case. If he had nothing to hide in the 14-month run-up to his overthrow in April, why did he act like he did?

I posted Clinton's 1998 address to the nation because, in it, he makes exactly the same arguments that President Bush did later. I posted it because the fools in the United States Senate (most of whom voted for the 1998 Act) are now huffing and puffing about investigating whether or not we were "misled" about Iraq having WMD. I posted it because the Left is gleefully sharpening their political swords in anticipation of bringing this great President down over the "failure" to find WMD.

[Wolfstar]

Pinging you in support of Tony Blair's Iraq policy.

(An aside: Don't agree with him about pulling Britain closer to the EU and dumping the pound for the Euro, but that's for the British people to decide. One can disagree about policy matters while still maintaining respect for a person, as I do for PM Blair.)

[GOPJ]

I know liberals and here's how they think: "Well, like it was true when Clinton said it, and it's like, you know, not true when Bush says it."

[Traffic_Can]

What the libs wish for is that all pertinent historical facts, to be conveniently relegated to the "Memory Hole".

[Wolfstar]

LOL, but also right on.

[votelife]

bttt

[VOA]

My ribs are still recovering from the bitter laughter over Nancy Pelosi saying that
Saddam didn't have WMD...and that if we attacked Sadam, he'd use WMD on our troops.

[Wolfstar]

As a California resident, I'm embarrassed by the hard-Left likes of Pelosi, Waters, et. al., who infest our state's delegation. God help us all if that crowd ever gets back in the Congressional majority. [shudder]

[Almondjoy]

Attacked.. not invaded.. obviously you don't seem to know the difference since you had to point that out. You seem also to not address the fact that the situation was different in 1998 as opposed to 2003.

[Wolfstar]

As a Republican with a Libtertarian-leaning bent, prior to 9/11 I could broadly be characterized as in the "America First" camp. So I can understand the point of view of someone who is ambivalent over the Iraq War. But 9/11 changed everything for me and now, while I do understand, I respectfully don't agree that there are "too many questions unanswered."

Thankfully, we have not been attacked here at home again (although I expect we will some day). But look at it this way: Suppose we had been attacked again, in comparatively rapid succession and in a variety of ways. In your own private reasoning, be honest with yourself and answer this question: What would your attitude be if, instead of 3,000 dead, we suffered 10,000 or more? Would you want the President to sit around dithering with the UN while your life and the lives of your family were in danger, or act decisively to prevent further attacks? That's the question George W. Bush had to face as dawn broke on December 12th, 2001 — and continually thereafter as the anthrax attacks unfolded.

Where one stands on the Iraq War depends on whether one continues to view the world through a pre- or post-9/11 prism.

[Wolfstar]

Attacked.. not invaded.. obviously you don't seem to know the difference since you had to point that out. You seem also to not address the fact that the situation was different in 1998 as opposed to 2003.

Hmmm...how to respond without stooping to insults.

• Attacked vs. invaded: When 12 years of warnings, and "one last chances," and sanctions, and bombings don't work, policy makers are left with increasingly few options.
• The situation was different in 1998 as opposed to 2003: Yep, you're right on that one. In between, a little thing commonly referred to as "9/11" happened. You do remember, don't you? Multiple hijackings, buildings burning and crumbling, the United States Capitol under attack (first time since 1812), anthrax terrorism all up and down the East Coast, the New York Stock Exchange shut down, airplanes grounded...the "situation" was vastly different in the pre- vs. the post-9/11 world. President Bush said he would take the fight to the terrorists, and those who harbor and support them. That is EXACTLY what he has done and continues to do.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Are you arguing that Clinton the rapist liar is a credible source? Clinton also claimed (falsely) that genocide had happened in Kosovo. It is rather interesting to see my fellow Clinton haters cite him to back up their claims of WMD! It is akin to those freepers who hate the UN but then claim that "enforcement of UN resolutions" was a proper justification for the war with Iraq.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If we raid a house in LA and find no drugs, but instead uncover a fully-equiped crystal meth lab, do we have proof of illegal going-ons or not?

[Wolfstar]

No, Austin. Please see my Post #66 on this thread for a full explanation of my premise in posting Clinton's address. In 1998 the Iraq Liberation Act made regime change in that country U.S. policy. Clinton briefly acted on that new law in December 1998. In the post-9/11 world, President Bush implemented that policy.

As an aside, although I would rank Bill Clinton among the bottom four or five presidents in U.S. history, I would also tell you that I have never been a Clinton hater. My arguments with him were over policy and and conduct unbecoming a president of the United States. I can despise what he did and what he stands for without hating him on a personal level.

I believe recent history shows that Bill Clinton's handling of foreign affairs in general, and national policy as regards Iraq and terrorism in particular was, to put it generously, negligent. Nevertheless, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, and the premise of Clinton's 1998 address to the nation was correct, even though what he did about it was lousy.

[Wolfstar]

Isn't possession of drug paraphernelia a crime in and of itself? Hence the folks in your hypothetical "house in LA" would still go to jail even though no actual drugs were found.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As far as I know, paraphernelia are the objects people use in the act of ingesting/inhaling drugs.

That lab would be the method of production of the drugs, which would provide conclusive evidence of the criminal act of manufacturing drugs.

In either case however, my theoretical applies.

We found the labs, they were making WMD's.

[Wolfstar]

Good point. Thanks.

[Almondjoy]

Your right.. how do you respond with out resorting to insults.. I was the one that said the difference between 1998 and 2003 was Sept 11th as my first post you responded to. Lay off the weed Mr. short term memory boy.

[nutmeg]

BTTT

[Wolfstar]

I agree with you in part: Iraq's chem and bioweapons most likely have been distributed elsewhere. The Israelis claimed many months ago that Iraq was transferring its WMD to Syria. Hussein may indeed have ordered it. Or, more likely, in my opinion, the material may have been stolen by members of the Iraqi army and scientists for later sale on the black market. Remember, they mostly fled the battlefield as our troops advanced. They left some things behind and took other materiel with them.

All over Iraq, British and American troops have found the most amazing quantities of all sorts of military weapons and equipment hidden in private homes, schools, hospitals, and so on. Quantities of chem and bioweapons could be anywhere. We will never be able to search every building, or every sand dune, or under every rock in the foothills bordering Iran. So the weapons may never be found, and you are right that they may still be a threat.

As for Hussein's connection to terrorists, that is a long, well-documented history, one which both pre- and post-dates the existence of Al-Queda. There was an Al-Queda-like training camp in northern Iraq, which we destroyed during the war earlier this year. The origin of the ricin plot against Britain was traced to that camp. The connection to Al-Queda may have been tenuous, but it did exist.

There are many more dimensions to the Iraq War, however. Unfortunately, this post would become too lengthy if I tried to touch on them all. On balance, we will all have to decide for ourselves whether or not we think it was worth it. Personally, I do. But as long as someone, such as yourself, has honest questions, I can respect their point of view.

[optik_b]

In October 1998, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change in Iraq the national policy of the United States. He gave the above speech in December 1998. As was typical for Clinton, he failed to carry through on this very tough speech. His military action was half-hearted, short-lived, and seemingly undertaken as a means to distract from the impeachment process then underway.

This reminds me of a dark time for some on the right when they questioned and critiqued our nation's armed forces while they were engaged in the Kosovo campaign in the balkans. For some on the right politics becomes such an obsessive issue that they cannot set aside politics even to support the military. This makes them almost as bad as the left wing who inherently have no love for country and only are loyal to a left win agenda.

[Wolfstar]

If I understand your point, correctly, optik_b, I agree with you.

[ezoeni]

Seeing all this crap the demorats are pulling is realy really getting pissed off. Im realy not likeing these people these days ... but Ill be nice - I promise

[HitmanLV]

None of this matters - Dubya and Blair better find WMD or they will lose credibility they need to continue the war on terror. Period.

[Wolfstar]

The people who make the argument you do lack not only credibility, but logic. Do folks with your point of view contend that for 12 long years Saddam Hussein was calling some kind of insane bluff? That he never had WMD, but nevertheless allowed his power to be curbed by:

• Constant UN inspections — indeed, that he spent those years pretending to obstruct inspections and hide stuff he didn't have?
• Near daily bombings by the U.S. and Britain?
• The inabiltiy to exert free, sovereign control of not only Iraq's airspace, commerce, and its chief source of income, oil?

Hussein did all this for so long, why? When he threw the inspectors out in 1998, he did so why? In the 14-month build-up to the war earlier this year, Hussein had every opportunity to save his power (and possibly his life) by throwing open the country to UN inspections and cooperate fully. But he did not. Why, if he had no WMD? The truth is Hussein's actions only make sense in the context of his having something he desperately wanted to hide.

The truth also is that the international Left is trying to discredit the entirely justifiable overthrow of one of (if not the) most vicious, heinous, dangerous dictators in the post-WWII period.

[HitmanLV]

Wold, I agree with everything you said. But I also agree with everything I said. They are not mutually inconsistent.

The admin stuck its neck out. They must be right, or will suffer a terrible credibility loss.

That's the truth.

[america-rules]

Bump

[billbears]

Okay. Clinton said the same thing back in 1998. Doesn't change the point. The Democrats were wrong, the Republicans were wrong. Does that fact that the Democrats, who want to be in the business of nation building, believed the same thing somehow alleviate the issue?

Don't get me wrong, but all I'm seeing is 'well the Democrats said it too'. I thought conservatives held themselves to a higher standard than 'they said or did it too'. At least at one time not so many years ago they did.