Clinton said on Larry King that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for in Iraq. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if Iraq doesn't cooperate, the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
Clinton continued..."People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
That entire Clinton interview was summarily pro-Bush and defending the integrity and responsibility of the Oval Office. Good to see him do the right thing every onece in a while.
I'm on the wall about Bush and what he knew or was lead to believe. If he was given bad information or information was withheld, then some people need to be shown the door. If he knew what he was saying was deceptive, then he's no better than the rest.
The act of War was not undertaken because Saddam possessed WOMD - we already knew that. It was sold on the pretext that he could use them at a moments notice (45 minutes, right?), was within a year of having nuclear weapons (purchasing weapons grade material from Africa), was training terrorists (specifically, Al-Quada) organizations and was an immediate threat to the United States.
We were well aware of his use of chemical weapons on his own people 10 years ago when Bush Sr. and almost the entire GW cabinet gave Saddam a pass to do so in hopes of establishing economic ties to Iraq.
No question Saddam was a bad person who deserved to die. But the methods used to sell this "war on terrorism" are questionable.
Clinton said on Larry King that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for in Iraq. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if Iraq doesn't cooperate, the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
Clinton continued..."People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
I'm on the wall about Bush and what he knew or was lead to believe. If he was given bad information or information was withheld, then some people need to be shown the door. If he knew what he was saying was deceptive, then he's no better than the rest.
The act of War was not undertaken because Saddam possessed WOMD - we already knew that. It was sold on the pretext that he could use them at a moments notice (45 minutes, right?), was within a year of having nuclear weapons (purchasing weapons grade material from Africa), was training terrorists (specifically, Al-Quada) organizations and was an immediate threat to the United States.
We were well aware of his use of chemical weapons on his own people 10 years ago when Bush Sr. and almost the entire GW cabinet gave Saddam a pass to do so in hopes of establishing economic ties to Iraq.
No question Saddam was a bad person who deserved to die. But the methods used to sell this "war on terrorism" are questionable.
MP, do you have any FACTS to back up any of the above quote...could you at least get the occasional fact right??? Vague half truths, mixed with flat out bullshit is sssssooooo the Liberal mode of operation...Here's a few facts for you...pay attention...take notes if you have to...there's gonna be a quiz!
First off...The chemical attacks on Halabja occured on March 17th, 1988...GW Sr was President for all of about 45 days...So what the fuck did he have to do with it???
Second...We let Saddam do what ever he wanted to defeat IRAN...We had to pick the worst of the two evils, and at the time, we went with IRAQ...but you could have simply flipped a coin...maybe that is what Reagan did..."Heads IRAN, Tails IRAQ...You call it Casper"...The IRAN hostage crisis that Carter botched was still fresh in the American psychi...
Third...You have now spun the entire justification for going to war...READ THIS, DON'T SKIM IT...right from the State of the Union speech...
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. I'll give you this one, how come none of the Liberal pussies are bitching about the next one???
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?
The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.
And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.
Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.
Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
__________________________________________________ ___________
Took a few liberties with your version, didn't you!!! Every day, reporters direct from Iraq are reporting that the "resistance" appears to be from "foreign" fighters...and numerous terrorist camps have already been documented...our troops occupy one Northern Iraq right now...
Fourth...You say the "methods used to sell this "war on terrorism" are questionable"...READ THE FUCKING SPEECH AGAIN...and above all, you have the right to your opinion, even if it is so obviously wrong...
All Saddam had to do was come clean...and you know this...and he'd still be running shit...why didn't he???
...waiting...for yet an even bigger spin session...come on MP...lets have it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by packetjunkie
...blah, blah, blah....My contempt for the fact that Al Gore isn't running shit leaves me blinded to the greatness of GW...therefore I must bash him at least once a day...Oh, if only Al Gore hadn't lost Florida...I know Jeb is the Govenor, and winning Florida was a pipe dream....but we can still dream can't we...I mean, I am a dreamer first, a Liberal second.....
And how bad does it suck, that I am going to have to eat Republican shit until at least 2008, since out of 10 Democratic presidential nominees, there isn't one among them that is even remotely electable....SIX MORE YEARS OF BEING OWNED BY SNAKE BITTEN....UUGGHHH!!![/b] [img]/images/graemlins/laughing.gif[/img]
Here this ought to refresh your memory - lets see if you can stay on topic this time...
On another note, the "gassing" of his own people was something we let him do. In fact, Powell was National Security Advisor to Ronald Regan when this happened and the US failed to respond.
Why didnt the US take action immediately? What was done in response?
Senators Pell, Al Gore, and Jesse Helms had introduced legislation to impose comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq for its use of chemical weapons called The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988.
But, at the time, the Reagan administration had been providing Iraq with $700 million a year in credit guarantees. They considered Iraq both as a potential security partner in the Persian Gulf and as a promising market for American products and investment.
Working with the Republican House leadership and some House Democrats, the administration was able to water down and ultimately defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act. Dick Cheney, then a Republican congressman, could have helped push the sanctions legislation but did not.
So, in effect - the gassing of his own people was witnessed by Regan's administration - many of whom are part of THIS administration - yet, they did nothing about it.
So what changed? Did the "investments" in Iraq not work out the way they planned? Did Bush Jr. get pissed when Saddam wanted to whack Bush Sr?
I find it ironic that the very people who gave Saddam a pass to gas his own people today want to use the SAME evidence as justification for sending the nation to War (after the WOMD claims didnt pan out, of course).
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
This has also been proven as false. Rack 'em up.
By whom??? No one is whining about this...You got one thing outa the fifty listed in the State of the Union address...I re-read the whole thing...WMD was HUGE....and you state above it wasn't even a reason...can't you read??? Then fucking read it already...I know...You don't want to...but it's all there in black and white...
You have completely ignored the entire state of the Union address, short of the tidbit about African uranian...Terry McCuliff bought your soul, didn't he??? God knows he's got the cash, with the $100K he turned into $18M off his insider trading...
I addressed your first post...quite eloquently...re-read mine...
Vice President for eight years...what the fuck does the vice president do??? Who's runnin this war??? GW and Rummy...Cheney is in a secret location on a freakin heart monitor...YOU GOT BUSTED WITH SPREADING BULLSHIT AS FACT...fess up...It will make you feel better...
As I have understood it - the claim about the tubes was that there is no proof that the tubes were planned for nuclear use and, in fact, were UNLIKELY to be suitable for such a use. In fact, there appears to be genuine disagreement about what the tubes were actually planned for.
Now go back and read my third paragraph - the one I went to great lengths to explain subsequently that you ignored.
While long, I'll quote the entire articles I found so as to not upset Smackie with my excerpts.
Background
In recent days, as the Bush administration has defended its assertion in the president's State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium, officials have said it was only one bit of intelligence that indicated former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.
But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.
By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa -- although now almost entirely disproved -- was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration's case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier.
For example, in his Oct. 7 speech, Bush said that "satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." He also cited Hussein's "numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists" as further evidence that the program was being reconstituted, along with Iraq's attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes "needed" for centrifuges used to enrich uranium.
But on Jan. 27 -- the day before the State of the Union address -- the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported to the U.N. Security Council that two months of inspections in Iraq had found that no prohibited nuclear activities had taken place at former Iraqi nuclear sites. As for Iraqi nuclear scientists, Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council, U.N. inspectors had "useful" interviews with some of them, though not in private. And preliminary analysis, he said, suggested that the aluminum tubes, "unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges."
The next night, Bush delivered his speech, including the now-controversial 16-word sentence, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Of his October examples, only the aluminum tubes charge remained in January, but that allegation had a subtle caveat -- he described the tubes as merely "suitable" for nuclear weapons production. Without the statement on uranium, the allegation concerning aluminum tubes would have been the only nuclear-related action ascribed to Hussein since the early 1990s.
And the tubes had already been questioned not only by IAEA, but also by analysts in U.S. and British intelligence agencies.
The idea that Iraq was acquiring tubes for a nuclear program became public in September, shortly after the Bush administration began a campaign to marshal public, congressional and U.N. support for authority to attack Iraq if it did not disarm.
On Aug. 26, Vice President Cheney, the official most publicly vocal about Iraq as a nuclear threat, began the campaign when he told a Veterans of Foreign Wars audience: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon we cannot gauge."
On Sept. 8, the New York Times disclosed that intelligence showed that Iraq had "embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb" by trying to purchase "specially designed aluminum tubes" that unidentified administration sources believed were for centrifuges to enrich uranium.
The story referred to Bush "hardliners" who argued that action should be taken because if they waited for proof that Hussein had a nuclear weapon, "the first sign of a smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud."
That day, Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN's "Late Edition" and confirmed the Times story. She said the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." She also said, "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons, but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Cheney also confirmed the Times story that day, on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying that "we don't have all the evidence," but enough of a picture "that tells us that he [Hussein] is in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."
What neither Rice nor Cheney said at the time was that Baghdad's first attempts to purchase the aluminum tubes, more than a year earlier, had by Sept. 8 led to a fairly open disagreement in the U.S. intelligence community on whether the tubes were for centrifuges or for artillery rockets in Iraq's military program.
Analysts from the State and Energy departments said the tubes were too long and too thick for centrifuges; CIA and Pentagon analysts said they could be cut down and reamed out. Their debate was continuing as the agencies were putting together the still-classified national intelligence estimate on Hussein's weapons program.
In July, the United States had intercepted one shipment and obtained a tube; it was coated with a protective chemical that would have had to be removed if it were to be put to a nuclear purpose.
The intelligence estimate, completed in mid-September, reflected the different views, but the final judgment said that "most" analysts leaned toward the view that the tubes had a nuclear purpose. When the British dossier on Iraq's weapons program was published on Sept. 24, it referred to the tubes, but noted that "there is no definitive intelligence that it is destined for a nuclear program."
In his State of the Union address, Bush did not indicate any disagreement over the use of the tubes. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, however, outlined the arguments involved when he spoke eight days later before the Security Council, where inspectors already had challenged the U.S. position on them.
On March 7, ElBaradei gave his final report to the Security Council before his inspectors were removed from Iraq on March 18. His conclusion was that "the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." He also said the documents that gave rise to the allegation that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium were forged.
On March 16, Cheney appeared again on "Meet the Press" and reiterated his views of the previous August about Hussein's nuclear program. "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." The war began three days later.
Another story:
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - A key Iraqi scientist recently told the CIA that high-strength aluminum tubes bought by Baghdad weren't meant for nuclear bomb production, as President Bush suggested in his State of the Union address, two experts on Iraq's nuclear program say.
Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, who headed a uranium-enrichment unit vital to Iraq's pre-1991 bomb plans, "also said that since '91 they hadn't resurrected a nuclear weapon program," according to ex-Iraq inspector David Albright, an American physicist who acted as go-between for Obeidi to talk to U.S. authorities a few weeks ago.
The assertion that Baghdad had revived its nuclear project was central to the Bush administration's call for war early this year.
On March 16, three days before the U.S.-British invasion, Vice President Dick Cheney said Iraq was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons" and even that Iraq had "reconstituted nuclear weapons."
Jacques Baute, chief U.N. nuclear inspector for Iraq, said he also had learned, from a trusted source, of Obeidi's statements about the tubes and program status.
The Iraqi was in a position to know, Baute said. "He should have been aware if something had happened," the inspector said of claims Baghdad had revived its bomb-building.
Baute, head of the Iraq Nuclear Verification Office of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was interviewed at IAEA headquarters in Vienna.
Obeidi, now in Kuwait, made headlines last month when he dug up enrichment-centrifuge parts and documents he had buried in his Baghdad backyard, and gave them to the Americans. In CIA interviews, he said he hid them on orders from Iraqi leaders in 1991, during the Gulf War, for eventual use in rebuilding the bomb program, which was dismantled by U.N. inspectors after the 1991 conflict.
The White House said last month Obeidi's account was evidence of the ousted Baghdad regime's bomb ambitions. But U.S. officials did not, at the same time, report that the scientist had contradicted assertions that the program had already been revived and the tubes were part of it.
Asked Thursday in Washington about Obeidi's reported statements, a CIA spokesman declined to comment.
In his State of the Union address last Jan. 28, Bush offered two pieces of purported evidence that Iraq was resuming nuclear weapons work.
The first, alleging Iraq had secretly tried to buy uranium from an African state, was later discredited when Baute's team found such claims were based on forged documents of undisclosed origin.
Bush administration officials now contend other, unspecified evidence supports that allegation, but they have not produced such evidence. Washington Democrats are demanding a major investigation of possible misuse of intelligence.
The second element in the Bush speech was the tubes.
"Our intelligence sources tell us that (President Saddam Hussein) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production," Bush said.
Spinning cylinders made of aluminum can be used for inferior models of enrichment centrifuges, which separate out bomb uranium. But the Iraqis by 1990 had advanced to a much more productive design using carbon fiber tubes.
The Saddam government told IAEA inspectors it was buying the aluminum tubes to make small artillery rockets. The IAEA then assembled centrifuge experts to consider the question, and last March 7 IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council that documentary and other evidence strongly supported the Iraqi version. Even earlier, before Bush's speech, ElBaradei had raised serious doubts about the tubes allegation.
Albright, interviewed by telephone in Germany, said Obeidi, Iraq's top centrifuge expert, had been unequivocal in discussions with U.N. inspectors, with him and then with the CIA.
"Before the war he took the position the tubes weren't for centrifuges, and after the war" - when any fear of Saddam's dictatorial regime would have faded - "he told them the same thing," Albright said.
Baute said Iraqi centrifuge components were incompatible with such aluminum cylinders.
"They'd have to redevelop a complete research-and-development program to adapt those tubes," redesigning head caps, vacuum jackets, piping and other elements of the centrifuge assembly, said the IAEA physicist, who once helped build France's nuclear bombs.
Such enrichment programs require thousands of centrifuges in "cascade" array. Using the slower-spinning aluminum tubes would have forced the Iraqis to build many thousands more of the small, highly sophisticated machines, Albright said.
The centrifuge question had been raised legitimately, Baute said, but some U.S. officials were wrong to say the aluminum tubes could only have been destined for nuclear centrifuges.
Neither the U.S. military since March nor U.N. inspectors earlier found any signs of a revived Iraqi nuclear bomb program.
As recently as this week, the administration cited the tubes in support of its case. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher on Monday took note again of Obeidi's hidden centrifuge parts and said they should "give people pause to think that maybe that is, indeed, what these tubes were intended for."
MP...Your are missing THE POINT of this entire thread...YOU are the one that cannot debate a topic without changing the subject a gazzilion times to suit your liberal agenda...ARE YOU, OR ARE YOU NOT, TERRY McCULIFF??? Packetjunkie my ass...YOU ARE THE DNC CHAIRMAN!
READ THE FUCKING TOPIC...AGAIN...Now, try to stay with me...focus...where is your ADD medication???
BILL CLINTON, Liberal Democrat from Hell, confirmed in front of the entire world, that as of the day he left office, Saddam had sufficient weaponry, to be an imminent threat to the United States and our allies...and defended the military action against IRAQ...PLEASE ADDRESS THIS SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU CAN!
