Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Lefty Wilbury, Jan 9, 2004.
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.
The US justified going to war against Iraq last year citing the threat posed by Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction.
Republican President George W. Bush used Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes and Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism as the main case to the United Nations for the US-led war against Iraq.
But since the US occupation of Iraq, American forces have failed to uncover any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons since the war. Hundreds of experts are still scouring Iraq in the hunt.
An influential Washington think-tank said Thursday the Bush administration "systematically" inflated the threat from Iraq's weapons programmes in a bid to strengthen its push for military action against Iraq last year.
In its report, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also said it was unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or moved out of the country hundreds of weapons of mass destruction without Washington detecting some sign of activity.
Let us not lose sight that there is no doubt that Iraq had WMD's. Saddam has already proven that fact by using them against the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
The question is were WMD's in existence at the time of last years invasion?
To my mind the answer is irrelevant. Saddam had WMD's once and showed his willingness to use them. He could very easily acquire or manufacture and use them again.
The mistake I feel was that the politicians placed too much emphasis on the question of WMD's with the consequence of the pre-eminence of this topic in debates about the justification for war. Maybe if more emphasis had been placed upon humanitarian issues then more critics would have found the action acceptable.
I think it's high time the American people be allowed to see this convincing classified information. I mean, since Saddam is gone and Iraq is occupied, why not show the American people the info. If there are names of operatives in the info than they can black that out or whatever.
And who here said they stood behind what Clinton said? I suggest you save your criticism for those who deserve it.
The clintons aiding Bush to injure dean to help clark to pave the way for hillary?
That is more likely than not.
Again, Bam, you seem to miss the point.
While the erstwhile Dems & Libs run around yelling about WMDs & Lies, they conveniently ignore the fact that many of them, while in office during the Clinton years, said Saddam was a threat to the USA and his neighbors via his WMD / Nuke programs.
Bubba Clinton was convinced of the WMD's, his staff was convinced, the entire United Nations Security Council was convinced.
So many Dems back in the Clinton era are on record warning about the dangerous Saddam & WMDs, now who do you hear screaming the loudest about no WMDs found? Yep, the Dems.
The best intelligence agencies all around the world agreed : Saddam had active WMD programs.
Saddam's WMDs didn't just get invented by Dubya, no matter how loud you Libs cluck & cackle that it was.
If you doubt me, let me know and I'll be more than happy to provide you with actual quotes.
The Dems are just following the Clinton Legacy of lies and spins. They really do believe that if they repeat a falsehood enough times, people will believe it is true.
Well, you seem to forget that it was Bush who acted on the intelligence and invaded Iraq. You seem to forget that there were inspectors in Iraq when Bush invaded. You seem to forget the proven fraudulent "proof" of uranium purchases from Africa. I can provide links to a person who had access to all the intel regarding Saddam and who never saw the proof that Bush acted on. How would Clinton know if Saddam had the weapons? Is he still getting access to CIA top secret data? The last time he did have access was over three years ago.
What Saddam may have had in the 90's and what he had in the days leading up to the criminal invasion by Bush could be different right?
It's not just Democrats that are upset about this. A large chunk of the rest of the world is too. This monumental embarassment has severely damaged the credibility of the US intelligence machine and the Bush administration.
You can try and reason it away all you want, it was a huge mistake. Get over it.