Wow, an clearly unbiased source on the war like Truthout.org? How could I try to refute that?
Actually, I wont bother. Because in the last four years, every time Spot brings up the Bush lied/kids died mantra, I calmly remind Spot that President Clinton justified multiple major military operations in Iraq because Saddam had WMD. That's right, when 'W' was still the governor of Texas, Bill Clinton had hard intel that Saddam had WMD and that's why we bombed the s**t out of Iraq in 1998.
Conveniently, Spot never addresses his huge gaping hole in his mantra. Thus, since Spot has to concede the argument every time he brings it up because he has no response, there's really no reason for me to craft a new response until Spot answers the one I gave him several years ago and at least a dozen times since then.
If I remember the way this goes, Spot will now introduce a couple of quick and easy yet LONG posts that do a great job of moving this post down to the bottom of the page.
Oh, come on, Dave. If I wanted to bury your comments, I just would not let them post.
Boys and girls, the first rule of conservatives is that it is always Bill Clinton's fault. Always. But it wasn't the Bill Administration that invaded Iraq.
The Bill Administation didn't advocate invading Iraq; the Bill Administration said Saddam was contained, as did, ahem, Colin Powell at the time.
Spot referred to these two articles because the contained mostly quotations from the Bush Administration and some of its former members.
To Dave, an unreliable source just means one that doesn't agree with Dave. But who are you going to believe, Dave or your lying eyes?
No Spot, the 'Bill administration' said Iraq was not contained and had WMD, hence the need to attack. specifically, he said-
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. "
Sorry to quote so much in this comment, but I excerpted as much as possible. Everything he said could have been said by W in 2002-2003.
Nonetheless, you are always looking for ways to attack W for the very same words and deeds of Clinton. President Clinton told the world that the US and its allies KNEW that Saddam had WMD. This was the very justification for every military attack on Iraq in the Clinton years. But suddenly, when President Bush comes to office in 2000 he started aggressively 'creating' evidence of Saddam's WMD in Spot's version of history.
As Spot says, it wasn't the 'Bill administration' that invaded Iraq. Mostly because he lacked the willpower to do so. The first Bush screwed up by not removing Saddam. It was a tactical and strategic mistake. Then Clinton spent 8 years keeping Saddam contained. Fat lot of good that did us.
Your obsession with the Bush lied mantra is causing you to put forth illogical arguments that don't hold up to the slightest of scrutiny, yet you keep at it. Let it go Spot, and maybe you can save yourself from the ulcer that is surely in your future.
Yeah, Dave, multiple military operations in Iraq...that were already ongoing when he came into office. None of which involved actually invading Iraq or toppling Saddam. And none of which involved screwing our defenses, screwing our military or blindingly ignoring the one who attacked us 7 months into BUSH"s first term.
Oh and just in case you missed it, according to the FBI interview with Saddam Hussein if he had any WMD he would have used them against us. So guess what that means, Dave. If Bush and the rest of you had been right and Iraq did have WMD...you would be the ones responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of thousands if not more of American soldiers.
The war was built on a lie, Dave, and there is no justification for it.
Oh and don't be asinine enough to equate what Clinton did in 1998 with what Bush did. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq for one real reason. To secure Iraq's oil fields. All Clinton did was order aerial bombardments. Aerial bombardements are not an invasion, child. And if Clinton had ordered the invasion of Iraq you Republicans would have been jumping up and down screaming bloody murder.
And according to those same interviews, Saddam viewed Osama bin Laden as a fanatic and a threat to himself.
If all you can do to defend yourself is bring up Bill Clinton, Dave, then you're admitting that you've lost.
How about Saddam admitting that he lied to everyone and said he had WMD because he was more afraid of Iran than he was of the United States. Nevermind Bush lied people died -- Saddam lied people died. If someone lies to you convincingly and you believe them, then you retell that story, that does not make you a liar.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/...-wmd-fear-iran/
IT'S A WAR FOR OIL! A WAR FOR OIL! please...
James Kessler-lining up the straw men and knocking them down with ease.
Neither Spot nor James has yet admitted the logical truth that US and allied intel told us that Iraq had WMD long before Bush came to office.
Neither James nor Spot ever will admit that because it invalidates every argument they make about Bush cooking the books or lying about WMD.
Keep spinning gentlemen, this is rather amusing to see you squirm.
You guys are funny.
If Iraq was soooooo dangerous, why, when he was chairman of Halliburton, did Dick Cheney want to end sanctions and get back into the oil bidness with Iraq? And did through European subsidiaries?
We also told the inspectors to leave because we wanted to start Shock and Awe. Afraid they wouldn't find anything, which they, and we didn't, of course.
Uncle Alan (Greenspan) said it was about oil.
Give it up Dave. We made it all up. Every intel assessment that mentioned WMD had significant caveats. But Bush and Cheney blew straight through them. The 2003 SOTU was a bald-faced lie, given with great specificity to con people into thinking it was true. I mean, Jesus, "500 tons - which is one million pounds - of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 missiles to deliver the stuff"; it is chicanery that will live in infamy.
And you can't justify the war because Saddam wasn't a nice neighbor. Iraq committed aggressive war again Iran, but that was okay because we didn't like Iran, but when it invaded Kuwait, we reacted. There was justification for that, and it had international support and a forthright UN resolution.
Iraq was not engaged in acts of war when we invaded, and it was not committing a genocide. The war was never sold as a humanitarian intervention. Rwanda and Darfur are certainly better cases for humanitarian intervention that Iraq every was. Funny, I don't think there is oil in either Rwanda or Darur.
You continue to assert, at least the way I read it, that the US is entitled to unilaterally rearrange the geo-political furniture as it sees fit. It simply isn't.
And don't ever write about gassing the Kurds in a comment again, please. Donny Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand at about the same time.
How many times mus I ask Spot or James to respond to the FACT that Clinton's intel stated unequivocally that Saddam had WMD? How many times will Spot and James change the subject to suit their own needs?
Still awaiting an answer, Spotty.
Okay, Dave, tell you what. Bring me a note from Bill Clinton stating that his intel unequivocally said Saddam had WMD in the kind of quantities that the serial prevaricator Bush later said he did.
It is true that the US and Brits were trying to starve Saddam out with the sanctions, which were becoming very unpopular worldwide, and in the Arab world in particular, because of the effects on the populace of Iraq, not Saddam. And "concern" at WMD was part of the pretext for maintaining the sanctions.
When it became clear that sanctions were not likely to work, guys like Cheney tried first to get around them, and then realized tha was not the long- term solution, and that direct "regime change" was really the only way to go.
When departing Clinton Administation officials briefed incoming Bushers, they said boy, look out for al Qaeda; it will be your biggest foreign policy problem. And Condi Rice replied, "Oh no, it'll be Iraq!" And Condi, and George, and Dick, and Donny made it so.
Only the truest and most delusional of Bush believers would have the chutzpah to blame the Iraq war on the Clinton Administration.
"How many times mus [sic] I ask Spot or James to respond to the FACT that Clinton's intel stated unequivocally that Saddam had WMD?"
Does this mean you are willing to admit that the Clinton Administration's various air operations (which we know took out the last shreds of Saddam's WMD and Command and Control infrastructure), were not, in fact, a ruse to distract the public from the Blow Job Issue?
Are you further willing to admit that the Blow Job Issue probably shouldn't have risen to the level of Constitutional Crisis the way the torture, electronic eavesdropping, phony war, and general corruption issues DID NOT rise to a similar level for your bush Administration?
I've never said that Clinton's extra curricular activities were serious enough to warrant impeachment. It was only when he perjured himself to a grand jury that he stepped into the realm of needing to be impeached.
Ironically, however, the only logical way for Spot to reconcile his claim that President Bush faked the WMD intel would be to claim that President Clinton also faked the WMD intel as well to distract the country from his personal life. He could even modify his dumbest statement ever and say that Clinton only attacked Iraq because he knew they did not have WMD.
That way, the WMD intel would have been consistently faked, rather than having been genuine up until Jan 20th 2000, when it suddenly became fake.
"Everyone got this wrong." Joe Biden is hoping that statement is enough to insulate his administration from being blamed for an economy that's worse after the stimulus than he said it would be if we didn't pass the stimulus. But with Bush, when every country's foreign intelligence (including ours under Clinton) says Saddam had WMD (and he said he did too) instead it's "Bush lied, people died." Maybe we should start chanting, "Obama lied, the economy died!"
Saddam Hussein said he had WMDs?
No s**t...he was a bully and a tyrant and both are pathological liars especially when it came to not showing how weak the Iraqi military had become. If Iran had an idea that Saddam had no WMDs Iran would have pasted his ass from one side of the middle east to the other.
If he really had WMDs don't you think he would have used them against us? It's not like he was going to stay in power any other way other then by so hurting us that we left him alone.
James,
You say that "If Iran had an idea that Saddam had no WMDS..." they would have wiped him out. OK, so then clearly Iran thought he had them. And when we now find out that he didn't, does that mean that everyone in Iran was a liar? Bush lied, people died, remember?
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Bush lied and also say that many others, including his neighbors, were convinced he had them. There's a difference between being wrong and being a liar.
Well, by Spot's theory, Pres Clinton only attacked Iraq in 1998 because he KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD (all statements to the contrary, but that's hardly a first for Bill).
And still, 14 comments and 6 days later, neither Spot nor his loyal defenders have any idea of how to explain how Clinton's intel in '98 magically became faked by Bush in 2003.
Nice article in the Strib today about the oil in Iraq...
Easy. Bill was right. The UN supervised the dismantling of Saddam's arsenal following Gulf War 1. George II concocted a new imminent threat "Boo! Yellow Cake!". Inspectors were in the middle of disproving George's crap intel, so he yanked them and started the war.
Commenting by HaloScan
