Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 06/02/2003 6:14:58 PM PDT by Wolfstar

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:38 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 1998; bush; clinton; iraq; notagainandagain; wmd; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: TheEaglehasLanded
GREAT supplement to the printed version. Thank you very much for posting it.
61 posted on 06/03/2003 10:49:16 AM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Genuine thanks for the clarification. You are right, of course.
62 posted on 06/03/2003 10:50:41 AM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
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.
63 posted on 06/03/2003 10:55:26 AM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Registered
Terrific image, Grampa Dave and Registered.
64 posted on 06/03/2003 10:57:18 AM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar; Registered
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.


65 posted on 06/03/2003 11:01:41 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

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

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.

66 posted on 06/03/2003 11:19:40 AM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
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.)

67 posted on 06/03/2003 11:26:28 AM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
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."
68 posted on 06/03/2003 11:28:59 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
What the libs wish for is that all pertinent historical facts, to be conveniently relegated to the "Memory Hole".
69 posted on 06/03/2003 11:33:40 AM PDT by Traffic_Can ("The future, Winston, is a boot smashing the face of humanity, forever" G. Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
LOL, but also right on.
70 posted on 06/03/2003 11:34:16 AM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
bttt
71 posted on 06/03/2003 11:48:39 AM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
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.
72 posted on 06/03/2003 12:05:14 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VOA
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]
73 posted on 06/03/2003 12:27:37 PM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

To: 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.
75 posted on 06/03/2003 2:16:51 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Agape
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.

76 posted on 06/03/2003 2:21:09 PM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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


77 posted on 06/03/2003 2:36:11 PM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
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.
78 posted on 06/03/2003 2:54:24 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
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?
79 posted on 06/03/2003 3:36:03 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
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.

80 posted on 06/03/2003 3:38:23 PM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB, who is a truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson