posted on January 9, 2004 11:21:17 AM new
This disgusts me to no end. WHAT A SLIME BALL clinton IS. I have repeatedly defended this president on this subject. I have posted multiple articles, that contained clinton's own words about Saddam, Iraq and WOMD. But many argued that was OLD info. Bush was lying to us.
I have also used the argument that Hillary voted for this Iraq war....all to no avail. Bush lied, Bush lied to get us into this war. ETC ETC.
Had clinton been man enough to make this statement to our US press, to the American people, rather than dance around the subject everytime someone asked him, it very well could have brought unity in our country about the whole Iraq issue.
But no....don't mention you also believed, when you were in office, the exact same thing the sitting President did, because we have to keep our Nation security a political issue....cause a divide between the party's....allow millions to believe President Bush was lying to the US and the World about this issue.
-------
Friday January 9, 4:18 PM
Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction:
Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.
Clinton, a Democrat who left office in 2001, met with Durao Barroso on October 21 when he travelled to Lisbon to give a speech on globalization.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 9, 2004 11:26 AM ]
posted on January 9, 2004 11:54:44 AM new
Linda, Hussein DID have WOMD... the chemical and biological type. I don't know of anyone who would argue against that. But that's not what we're talking about. The WOMD everyone's referring to are the nuclear kind... the weapons that were aimed for the U.S. which caused the war to begin with.
After watching a bit of CNN last night, I had to chuckle at the way the nuclear weapons threat has been slowly downgraded (verbally) by the U.S... from immediate threat of attack to the possiblity Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons capabilites. That says it all.
posted on January 9, 2004 01:01:00 PM new
KD - I beg to differ, once again.
In clinton's Dec. 1998 speech to our nation he included all three catagories as "womd". Not excluding any of the three that are usually referred to.
He could have been forthcoming and made these statements to our press where the matter could have been settled once and for all. Politics and his party accusing Bush of lying have been going on for THREE YEARS. He could have made a difference....he chose not to. Slime......
posted on January 9, 2004 01:34:05 PM new
I know what you're saying, Linda... if President Clinton had've taken care of Hussein in the first place, Bush wouldn't be in this mess that makes him look like a liar and a bad guy that loves war.
The nuclear capabilities Iraq was trying to acquire was under the alleged guise of nuclear energy. Clinton didn't want them to go that route because of how easy it would be for them to build a bomb. They still tried, then threatened to buy from NK. How was Clinton supposed to handle this threat?
posted on January 9, 2004 03:16:38 PM new
KD - No, I don't think you're getting my point. [Trying to be clearer here].
I'm saying clinton and Bush both believed Saddam and all three WOMD catagories existed.
Clinton has now confirmed that to this PM. But why I think him a low-life is BECAUSE he didn't have the balls to step up to the plate and say to the American public, who have continue to call Bush a liar on this matter, [maybe]>>"YES, I too, believed during my administration SADDAM DID HAVE THESE WEAPONS. Even IF the two disagreed with how the problem would be handled. But instead his silence on this NATIONAL SECURITY issue only gave more support to those who think/thought Bush lied about Saddam having these weapons.
I have no doubt the two would have handled the crisis differently. Even though clinton did bomb Iraq in 12-1998, for exactly the same reasons, he more likely than not would NOT have sent in ground troops the way Bush has.
Of course, we don't know that for sure, but we do know from watching how he handled other crisis...and the 1998 Iraq bombing, he usually chose to bomb from the air. [Remember Mather's statement on cowards?-bombing from the air] I believe he knew how unpopular war is to most and want as few soldier deaths as possible. But bombing from the air also causes more deaths to civilians on the ground too. So that's my reasoning behind that thought.
posted on January 9, 2004 06:03:33 PM new
Linda, when Clinton was on Larry King, he said he backed bush. We were all arguing here about that because some of us felt, as a former President, he had no other choice but to say that. Some didn't agree.
Also, Hillary voted for the war(s), which tells me she too backed the President.
posted on January 11, 2004 12:14:17 AM new
H*LL, I backed Bush until it has now become clear that he knowingly lied about the Iraq situation. I gave him every benefit of the doubt. But now the evidence has become clear and corroborated by O'Neal and others.
posted on January 11, 2004 11:34:06 AM new
Thanks for clearing that up Reamond. I was sure you were a Bush supporter, so your recent posts had me confused. Sad isn't it?
I guess some of the "radicals" here weren't so wrong afterall.
