2
   

OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

 
 
chiczaira
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:11 pm
I notice that the erudite Setanta has not or cannot handle Clinton's comments.

Again, the entire speech given by Clinton on December 16, 1998 as a rationale for his "pre-emptive attack" on Iraq( for which he did not obtain Congressional authority as President Bush did) is loaded with Clinton's fears about Saddam's intentions and his apprehensions that Saddam was RECONSTITUTING his Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Those interested in the entire speech may find it at

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2005 01:57 am
squinney wrote:
It appears that YOU don't get it.

There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

(Well, except for Bush using it as an excuse to invade.)

Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Afghanistan. He certainly didn't use it as an excuse to invade Iraq. You maybe could find a speech that mentions both, but I'd love to see a quotation where Bush alleges that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2005 02:57 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
squinney wrote:
It appears that YOU don't get it.

There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

(Well, except for Bush using it as an excuse to invade.)

Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Afghanistan. He certainly didn't use it as an excuse to invade Iraq. You maybe could find a speech that mentions both, but I'd love to see a quotation where Bush alleges that Iraq was involved in 9/11.


It is interesting that you mention the word EXCUSE for both Afghanistan and Iraq. I take it that you agree that Bush needed an excuse. ;-)

Is the following quote close enough?

"As we work to deliver opportunity at home, we're also keeping you safe from threats from abroad. We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens. Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror. These foreign terrorists violently oppose the rise of a free and democratic Iraq, because they know that when we replace despair and hatred with liberty and hope, they lose their recruiting grounds for terror."

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 07:43 am
And now Scott McClellan is playing up the lie:

Scott McClellan during his White House press briefing, 6/20/05:

Quote:
McCLELLAN: A free Iraq will be a powerful force for change in a very dangerous region of the world, a region where we had hijackers come from that killed some 3,000 innocent Americans.


Didn't we go through this a while back? Remember when some huge percentage of people believed Saddam/ Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Then, when called on it, various people from the Bush admin. came out and said something like "We never said that" and a careful review showed that they actually never said it outright but had only strongly suggested so people would make the incorrect connection in their minds?

Now, they are coming right out and saying Iraq = 9/11 with that cute little use of the word "region" WHEN IT DIDN'T and DOESN'T!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 10:18 am
The way I see the differences in Clinton actions in 1988 is that Clinton was reacting to Saddam Hussein refusing to cooperate with the UN inspectors, so he bombed those areas thought to be holding WMD. He also wanted to continue the sanctions so that Saddam could not rebuild his weapons if he wanted to. He also wanted to work with Iraqi's opposition groups in order to effect regime change. At no time did he suggest an all war which would require consent from congress.

Either they destroyed the weapons in question with those strikes or Clinton was wrong in thinking there were weapons of mass destruction. We now know there were no weapons of mass destruction. So there was no need for the war.

On the other hand Bush wanted so badly to go war and he wasn't getting the support that he wanted at first from the American people. So they set about gathering new evidence from the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Some of those intelligence agencies had expressed doubts about the existence of stockpiles of WMD and Nuclear weapons. Bush chose to ignore that intelligence and started saying stuff like "mushroom clouds" and alluding to how Saddam was going to give WMD to terrorist and kept mentioning 9/11 in every other breath along with Iraq.

All the justice for the war now is based on what ifs and democracy for Iraq. It's a total mess.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 09:27:28