Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

[Lefty Wilbury]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html

Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

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.

 

[5.10 leader]

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.

 

[bamthin]

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.

I find it hilarious that neocons will now stand behind what Clinton says though. Not long ago, he was a guy that you couldn't trust no matter what came out of his mouth. Hypocrites.....


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
I find it hilarious that neocons will now stand behind what Clinton says though. Not long ago, he was a guy that you couldn't trust no matter what came out of his mouth. Hypocrites.....

And who here said they stood behind what Clinton said? I suggest you save your criticism for those who deserve it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The clintons aiding Bush to injure dean to help clark to pave the way for hillary?

 

[5.10 leader]

That could be called Hillaryous

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
The clintons aiding Bush to injure dean to help clark to pave the way for hillary?

That is more likely than not.

 

[NightTrain]

I find it hilarious that neocons will now stand behind what Clinton says though. Not long ago, he was a guy that you couldn't trust no matter what came out of his mouth. Hypocrites.....

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.

 

[wonderwench]

Right On NightTrain!

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.

 

[bamthin]

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.

-Bam

 

[wonderwench]

Spin.

I really don't give a fuckity fuck what a bunch of totalitarian collectivists in other parts of the world think of us. The UN is an obsolete organization which legitamizes despots by making them the peers of democratically elected governments.

You are also inaccurately representing the uranium claim. Try reading the actual text of Bush's State of the Union Address from last year. Then come back for a discussion.

 

[Comrade]

Wonderwench/NightTrain/JimNyc, all reasons why I adopted this board as my new home for debate. My last attempt at this was at ***(NT). Most conservatives left, and Liberals pretty much run the place now in a "me too" Democratic Underground sort of environment.

The other reason is that Liberals here tend to be reasonable as well, and as you'll discover I'm not a "me too" conservative in many respects.

 

[NightTrain]

Well, you seem to forget that it was Bush who acted on the intelligence and invaded Iraq.

Where would you get the silly notion that I forgot that? I'm still cheering Dubya for having the balls to step up to the plate and do the right thing!

I know you think it's terrible that Saddam was found like the cowardly rat he is in a hole, but it really was in the best interests of the people of Iraq and the security of the USA and Iraq's neighbors.

You seem to forget that there were inspectors in Iraq when Bush invaded.

You're wrong.

You seem to forget the proven fraudulent "proof" of uranium purchases from Africa.

Read WW's response. And then start looking across the Atlantic for that piece of intel.

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.

Feel free, I'm looking forward to it! Be aware that it will be scrutinized closely, so don't embarass yourself.

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.

Re-read my previous post. Pay close attention to the : "Again, Bam, you seem to miss the point" part.

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?

Umm... yes! You are correct.

However, what makes you repeat that favorite bullshit liberal line about a 'criminal invasion'?

I'd like to see your basis for it. You know the rules about what is acceptable backup and what isn't.

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.

I think WW summed it up quite nicely.

You can try and reason it away all you want, it was a huge mistake. Get over it.

Was it?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again : I would pay a very large amount of money to watch you stand in front of those millions of Iraqis that were either personally tortured & maimed, or had family & loved ones tortured, maimed & executed and tell them that it was a huge mistake and that the USA was wrong in freeing them of a brutal tyrant.

Perhaps they would laugh at you, but I would bet my last beer that they would find great joy in dismembering you on the spot. And, as far as I'm concerned, you'd deserve it for your callous lack of empathy for their decades of fear, pain and loss.

 

[NightTrain]

Welcome to the board, Comrade!

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Spin.

The UN is an obsolete organization which legitamizes despots by making them the peers of democratically elected governments.

been saying the un was obsolete for a while now. they jsut need to hurry up and gete gone.

Welcome to the board Comrade

 

[bamthin]

NT,

The inspectors were told to leave so the US could invade. You know that is what I meant. The fact is that the inspections were ordered over before the inspectors were finished so Bush could rush in and kill 9000+ Iraqis and almost 500 American servicemen.

I know the intel was fraudulent about the Nigerian uranium purchases. It doesn't matter who forged it, Bush used it in a speech to whip up support for the war.

Here's the guy I was talking about. I snipped the relevant paragraph but feel free to read the article.

""Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. As chief of the Central Command, Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' "

Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says, he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military. "I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, 'Where's the threat?' " Their response, he recalls, was, "Silence."

Zinni's concern deepened as Cheney pressed on that day at the Opryland Hotel. "Time is not on our side," the vice president said. "The risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action."

Zinni's conclusion as he slowly walked off the stage that day was that the Bush administration was determined to go to war. A moment later, he had another, equally chilling thought: "These guys don't understand what they are getting into.""

Check my post about "A Conservative's view of Iraq" in this forum for the whole story. Scrutinize away.

I got my data for the Iraq invasion being criminal here:

LINK

Spare me yur care and concern about the Iraqi population. I don't see you making posts about other tyrants and despots who are brutalizing their populations. The US can't save the world.

I am going to hold you to your nation-building pose now NT. You have to support spending US tax dollars and losing US lives to make every nation in the world free from tyrants. Congratulations!

Be prepared to be called out repeatedly for your view.


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
NT,

The inspectors were told to leave so the US could invade. You know that is what I meant. The fact is that the inspections were ordered over before the inspectors were finished so Bush could rush in and kill 9000+ Iraqis and almost 500 American servicemen.

I made it this far and gave up on the rest of the post. Your spins get tiresome to read. So Bush "rushed in and killed 9,000 Iraqi's"? How about the USA military invaded Iraq. As a result of fights with Iraq's military, terrorists and insurgents, innocent lives have been lost as well.

Your constant desire to blame Bush for all the worlds troubles is also tiresome. How come you aren't blaming all the democrats that voted for war for the deaths of Iraqi's and our soldiers?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Spare me yur care and concern about the Iraqi population. I don't see you making posts about other tyrants and despots who are brutalizing their populations. The US can't save the world.

I am going to hold you to your nation-building pose now NT. You have to support spending US tax dollars and losing US lives to make every nation in the world free from tyrants. Congratulations!

Be prepared to be called out repeatedly for your view.


-Bam

Have you read ALL of NT's posts since the beginning of the war? He has in fact made many posts dealing with oppressed people in other countries. And his stance about nation building has been one and the same since the very first post I've seen him make.

But go ahead and call NT out to the floor. I'm going to enjoy watching him take you to school.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I made it this far and gave up on the rest of the post. Your spins get tiresome to read. So Bush "rushed in and killed 9,000 Iraqi's"? How about the USA military invaded Iraq. As a result of fights with Iraq's military, terrorists and insurgents, innocent lives have been lost as well.

Your constant desire to blame Bush for all the worlds troubles is also tiresome. How come you aren't blaming all the democrats that voted for war for the deaths of Iraqi's and our soldiers?

Who issued the executive order to go to war. You are the tiresome one. Did you actually think I meant Bush personally went in and killed people? I am tired of your spin as well.


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Who issued the executive order to go to war.

George Bush did, after the house and congress voted.

Did you actually think I meant Bush personally went in and killed people? I am tired of your spin as well.

What spin did I write? Unlike you, I try to post facts. I don't post conspiracy theories. I don't post constantly trying to rip on any one politician. I don't blame any one person for the countries faults. What spin have I laid down here?

Feel free to make foolish posts though, wouldn't want you to have withdrawals.