Clinton may have believed that Iraq had WMDs but Clinton did NOT invade

[bribri16]

Iraq. That's the point!!!

[Cassandra]

1. Ah, you must be...

listening to C-Span right now.

YES, Clinton not only didn't invade but would have let Blix finish his job and would not have invaded for nothing.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

3. Right. At some point everyone believed

the Earth was the center of the universe or solar system.

But Clinton was not President at the time of the invasion.

Kerry and much of Congress were lied to like the rest of us about WMD in Iraq.

It is one of the most flawed arguments.

I never hear them say that all of these people believed it at the time of the invasion, or pre invasion.

It was so clear in observing * that nothing would stop him, nothing satisfy him. No matter how many inspectors found nothing.

:crazy:

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Whenever I get into a discussion with idiots who bring up that..

..Clinton said this or Kerry said that, I always ask them who invaded and who made the decision to invade.

The bottom line is you can't call your the party of "personal responsibility" if your first response to fucking up is to point fingers at what other people said.

[ClintonTyree]

4. That's the entire point by the Slugs

Clinton was a President of "inaction". :eyes: bush, on the other hand is a resolute "warrior" :puke: that doesn't hesitate to totally fuck things up by acting unilaterally.
Clinton was a President of thoughts, then action. bush is a president of knee jerk reaction with no thought process cluttering up the issue.
And the Slugs love him for this? :shrug: If being a knee JERK reactionary is a positive character trait, we're in deep, deep trouble in this country.

[justinsb]

5. Personally, I think Clinton was lying as well. n/t

[Cassandra]

7. I'm not sure.

I think that Clinton thought that if Saddam would not allow inspectors, he must be hiding something. He just thought that what he was hiding was weapons rather than his toothlessness in the face of his enemies.

[CTyankee]

8. about what specifically having to do with Iraq?

I was under the impression that we had Saddam in a box and effectively kept him from obtaining wmds after getting rid of the ones he had. I thought the general consensus was that Clinton's policies contained and defanged Saddam as a threat to us.

[justinsb]

9. More recently when he gets on MSM

and says that everyone thought that Iraq had WMD's. I think Bush manufactured evidence and I think that Clinton saw the same intelligence reports that Bush did (pre doctoring). I believe, had he wanted to, Clinton could have blown the wistle on Bush's lies.

[CWebster]

6. Such desperation to rally the Clinton bandwagon

What have the Clintons done or said to confront or challenge one of the worst political eras in this country? Nada, and when they aren't triangulating, they are coaching all to move along to get along and unite.

What the hell is the matter with you people, falling in line and marching in step to the agenda they are pushing on you? Why the hell is Clinton being set up as the inevitable--and don't you question that? Why the hell should she be rewarded for her complicity? Is the Democratic party so monopolized by Clintonistas that there is no other choices? Why are you people so susceptible time after time after time, hook, line and sinker?

BUSHCLINTONBUSHCLINTON---America's miserable mediocre ruling dynasty.

We can do better--and we deserve better.

[CTyankee]

11. I agree that dynasties are not a good thing in general

smacking too much of oligarchies. That concerns me. I would like to see some fresh talent. Perhaps, though, all this handwringing will be for naught. We may see new faces on the political scene. The reaction against the Iraq war might be the catalyst on this change and new faces will appear. Just look at Hackett and Sheehan's emergence.

I read somewhere about a theory that if someone who has been in national politics for longer than 10 years, that person could not win a presidential race. This is why senators don't get elected president (except for Kennedy). W and Bill had virtually no name recognition nationally when they were governors.

[magnolia]

10. The WMD...

...were being consistently exposed and destroyed. So, in the eight years that Clinton was president, Saddam did have weapons. But by the time Bush became president they were gone.

There is no logic to the idea that "Clinton believed he had weapons?" When he believed it...they did!

[theboss]

12. He just bombed the shit out of Iraq

And starved the country for ten years.

And he tried to invade in '98.

Otherwise, he's completely clean.

[CWebster]

13. And his wife still supports the invasion

and calls for more troops and buddys up with Santorium and Gingrich and focuses on sex and violence in the pop culture as the new vanguard... the clarion call to rally the majority to take this country back?

Think again.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Clinton didn't believe it

That's the shame of the Clinton administration. They knew Saddam didn't have WMD, but sustained the sanctions regime anyway, because they lacked the creativity and courage to develop another approach.

[Toots]

15. They also say Clinton was wrong to JOIN NATO in stopping a brutal dictator

from genocide and escalating violence into a major world war. It was wrong at that time to free an oppressed people from a man found guilty in International Court of War Crimes but it suddenly it is the American thing to do in Iraq even though NATO or UN will not participate. Saddam doesn't hold a candle to Milosivic for War Crimes and killing his own people but Clinton was wrong for helping NATO put an end to it while Bush* is right in invading Iraq even though the huge majority of the world refuses to participate or even agree it is worthy. How does their logic work?