Clinton Says Saddam Never Accounted for Weapons; Bush's Uranium Mistake Understandable

[charrison]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's erroneous reference to an Iraqi-Africa uranium link was understandable, former President Clinton said Tuesday, in part because Saddam Hussein's regime had not accounted for some weapons by the time Clinton ended his term in 2001.
Clinton's comments reinforce one of the pillars of Bush's defense of the war in Iraq - that his Democratic predecessor was never satisfied that Saddam had rid himself of weapons of mass destruction.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for," Clinton said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it," he said.

linkage

 

[shiner]

Oh no....the neocons have gotten to Bill!!!!

 

[bjc112]

Lets see if there is a big turn out from the Dems in this thread.

 

[Dari]

clinton understands because of all the foreign policy baggage he left for Bush to resolve.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Oh no....the neocons have gotten to Bill!!!!

<sarcasm - kinda>

Very understandable for Clinton to say this. He's been angling to get in the whitehouse again to get some more intern booty. This all but assures Bush his re-election and sets the stage for an '08 Hillary run for President.

</sarcasm- kinda>

Whew....

Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up😉

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up😉

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up😉

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

 

[flavio]

Wow....people just keep bringing up Clinton to justify what ShrubCo has done.

It doesn't work. Clinton is not president. He's not even in public office.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio
Wow....people just keep bringing up Clinton to justify what ShrubCo has done.

It doesn't work. Clinton is not president. He's not even in public office.

So anything he says about current events should be completely ignored?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: flavio
Wow....people just keep bringing up Clinton to justify what ShrubCo has done.

It doesn't work. Clinton is not president. He's not even in public office.

if you promise not to bring up clinton in regards to the economy, we promise not to bring up clinton in regards to foreign policy.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up😉

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

I never said Clinton didn't have proof. He claimed to, and he acted on it with the airstrikes. I didn't know it last 4 days, but its still a vastly different action then a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

But isn't this the same man who lied about a BJ?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up😉

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

I never said Clinton didn't have proof. He claimed to, and he acted on it with the airstrikes. I didn't know it last 4 days, but its still a vastly different action then a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general.

You mean like the current president claimed to and acted on the available intel?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up😉

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

I never said Clinton didn't have proof. He claimed to, and he acted on it with the airstrikes. I didn't know it last 4 days, but its still a vastly different action then a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general.

You mean like the current president claimed to and acted on the available intel?

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio
Wow....people just keep bringing up Clinton to justify what ShrubCo has done.

It doesn't work. Clinton is not president. He's not even in public office.

So anything he says about current events should be completely ignored?

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now. Maybe you could read this part though:

Clinton confined his remarks to biological and chemical weapons, and did not say whether he would consider credible any report that Saddam had wanted to build a nuclear weapons program.

Nonetheless, he suggested that Bush's mistake was par for the course

Sounds like he's being awfully nice in calling it a "mistake". What a gentleman, but that's what makes him a good politician.

The rest of us on the other hand don't have to be so nice about Shrubby's "mistake".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up😉

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

I never said Clinton didn't have proof. He claimed to, and he acted on it with the airstrikes. I didn't know it last 4 days, but its still a vastly different action then a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general.

You mean like the current president claimed to and acted on the available intel?

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

So if Bush only sat back and lobbed a few hundred missiles at Saddam - you'd have been OK with that? It wouldn't have been "illegal" or "unjust" and you wouldn't be asking for "proof"?

CkG

 

[etech]

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

Tell me more about Clinton's 'actions'. How exactly did they resolve the situation? Was Saddam and his sons still in power. Was Saddam still supporting terrorists? Just how effective were Clinton's actions?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up😉

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

I never said Clinton didn't have proof. He claimed to, and he acted on it with the airstrikes. I didn't know it last 4 days, but its still a vastly different action then a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general.

You mean like the current president claimed to and acted on the available intel?

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

Yes, your right. One only bombed a country for 4 days, was left unaware if it did any good, failed to continue inspections and left sanctions on a country. The other removed the represive regime, lifted sanctions and set about rebuilding the country based on similar evidence. You are right they did do things differently.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So if Bush only sat back and lobbed a few hundred missiles at Saddam - you'd have been OK with that? It wouldn't have been "illegal" or "unjust" and you wouldn't be asking for "proof"?

If he lobbed those missiles at the sites where he knew there were WMDs, then that would have been a great solution to the imminent threat Saddam posed to us.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio
Wow....people just keep bringing up Clinton to justify what ShrubCo has done.

It doesn't work. Clinton is not president. He's not even in public office.

So anything he says about current events should be completely ignored?

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now. Maybe you could read this part though:

Clinton confined his remarks to biological and chemical weapons, and did not say whether he would consider credible any report that Saddam had wanted to build a nuclear weapons program.

Nonetheless, he suggested that Bush's mistake was par for the course

Sounds like he's being awfully nice in calling it a "mistake". What a gentleman, but that's what makes him a good politician.

The rest of us on the other hand don't have to be so nice about Shrubby's "mistake".

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So if Bush only sat back and lobbed a few hundred missiles at Saddam - you'd have been OK with that? It wouldn't have been "illegal" or "unjust" and you wouldn't be asking for "proof"?

If he lobbed those missiles at the sites where he knew there were WMDs, then that would have been a great solution to the imminent threat Saddam posed to us.

But what if they were not there?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So if Bush only sat back and lobbed a few hundred missiles at Saddam - you'd have been OK with that? It wouldn't have been "illegal" or "unjust" and you wouldn't be asking for "proof"?

If he lobbed those missiles at the sites where he knew there were WMDs, then that would have been a great solution to the imminent threat Saddam posed to us.

And it would have been a great way to get the WMD released into the air....good plan.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So if Bush only sat back and lobbed a few hundred missiles at Saddam - you'd have been OK with that? It wouldn't have been "illegal" or "unjust" and you wouldn't be asking for "proof"?

If he lobbed those missiles at the sites where he knew there were WMDs, then that would have been a great solution to the imminent threat Saddam posed to us.

But what if they were not there?

What if you invade, occupy, and kill thousands and they're not there?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So if Bush only sat back and lobbed a few hundred missiles at Saddam - you'd have been OK with that? It wouldn't have been "illegal" or "unjust" and you wouldn't be asking for "proof"?

If he lobbed those missiles at the sites where he knew there were WMDs, then that would have been a great solution to the imminent threat Saddam posed to us.

And it would have been a great way to get the WMD released into the air....good plan.

Oh but they'd never get released if you start a war?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio
Wow....people just keep bringing up Clinton to justify what ShrubCo has done.

It doesn't work. Clinton is not president. He's not even in public office.

So anything he says about current events should be completely ignored?

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now. Maybe you could read this part though:

Clinton confined his remarks to biological and chemical weapons, and did not say whether he would consider credible any report that Saddam had wanted to build a nuclear weapons program.

Nonetheless, he suggested that Bush's mistake was par for the course

Sounds like he's being awfully nice in calling it a "mistake". What a gentleman, but that's what makes him a good politician.

The rest of us on the other hand don't have to be so nice about Shrubby's "mistake".

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now.

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now.