He stated, in plain, obvious and incontrovertable terms, that Saddam had WMDs and WMD programns, and because Iraq had not complied with the terms of various UN resolutions in terms of both destroying these things and allowing inspectors in, he was ordering air and missile strikes. So -- Bill Clinton lied. Right?
Yes he does. He states clearly that we are attacking his weapons and his programs and his mneans top deliver them.I think your whole purpose is to force me to admit Clinton lied, right? It isn't my objective to defend Bill Clinton. I don't believe he was truthful in his reasons for Desert Fox, but I haven't found a quote in which he states in plain, obvious and incontrovertable terms that Saddam Hussein had WMD. In the quotes I have seen provided as evidence, he doesn't:
All the more reason to start withdrawing our troops sooner than later, this war is done with, over and out!
More U.S. troops died in Iraq over past four months than in any similar period of war - USATODAY.com...
To attack the progeams, the programs must exist.
To attack the military capacity, the capacity must exist.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons...To disperse the weapons, the weapons must exist.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction...To contain the weapons, the weapons must exist.
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...To contan the WMD programs, the programs must exist.
These sttements, previously excerpted, are -necessarioly- a claim that Iraq had WMDs
and WMD programs at the time of the attack
and that we were attacking them necessitates that we knew where they were.
Now you're just denying reality. Clinton -clearly- indicated that Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs in his speech, as proven by these quotes.Programs for WMD are not WMD. Programs can consist of nothing more than scientists and plans. All countries have programs; they are not necessarily threatening.
The capacity for having WMD is not the same as having WMD.
He was speaking hypothetically. In other words, IF we delayed, Saddam COULD HAVE dispersed his forces to protect his weapons HE MIGHT HAVE HAD. Even so, Saddam Hussein was allowed to have conventional weapons. "Weapons" doesn't necessarily mean WMD, even though it may be implied.
That doesn't mean they exist CURRENTLY.
Again, WMD programs are not the same thing as WMD.
You have yet to prove that Clinton said Saddam Hussein had WMD at the time of the attack.
I will grant you that. WMD programs are not the same as WMD, and not necessarily threatening.
Wrong. The stated reason for Desert Fox was to force Saddam to comply with UN inspections.
Now you're just denying reality. Clinton -clearly- indicated that Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs in his speech, as proven by these quotes.
One last time:You have yet to prove that Clinton said Saddam Hussein had WMD. I never denied that he said Saddam Hussein had WMD programs. For the umpteenth time, WMD programs are not the same as WMD. You are the one who is reality-impaired.
Yes.. as in if we did not wait. We did not wait, and so the hypothetical doesnt apply. We attacked when we did so he could not protect his WMDs.He was speaking hypothetically...
That's true. but, as I said -- we were attaking hois WMDs and WMD programs. He said so.Wrong. The stated reason for Desert Fox was to force Saddam to comply with UN inspections
By definition you don't support the troops if you don't support what they do every day, so you don't support the troops.
One last time: "If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons"...What weapons, if not his WMDs, is he dispersing and protecting? Please note that he said "forces" and "weapons" - if "weapons" means conentional weapons, why make the distinction?
"So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction'...He's not talking about containing weapons he MIGHT have, he's talking about weapons he DOES have.
That's true. but, as I said -- we were attaking hois WMDs and WMD programs. He said so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?