Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Get ready to hear this a lot: "Even Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:03 PM
Original message
Get ready to hear this a lot: "Even Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs"
Instant comeback: "But Clinton didn't invade Iraq"

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Also, with Gore's quotes
He said similar things to Clinton, but he opposed the war from the start
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cantstandbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
38. Yes, but Clinton didn't invade on a "thought" and cause the deaths of
2000 US soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis. A "thought" is not "evidence."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seansky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. comback: But Clinton didn't lied...and nobody died.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AussieDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
37. Or rather: "Clinton lied about a blow-job - but nobody died"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiraboo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not wanting to be a pain,
but I'm pretty sure Clinton bombed Iraq now and then during his tenure. I remember it, because I was appalled. We will never win a political discussion by insisting on Clinton's "virtues" and we shouldn't even try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Big difference. How many Americans got killed in Iraq with Clinton prez?
How many hundreds of billions of dollars did Clinton piss away there? Thats all the voters care about.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiraboo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
33. Don, with respect:
it's not about american deaths exclusively, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. To your average American voter the answer to your question is yes
That is just the way it is not the way I want it.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. That was before Operation Desert Fox when Clinton disarmed Saddam.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. not the only thing Clinton was wrong about, but as you say...
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 05:07 PM by mike_c
...he didn't invade Iraq. He did press a murderous economic sanctions program that was responsible for the deaths of up 500,000 children, and maintained constant harrassment from the air. Clinton has little to be proud of for not invading Iraq, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. Another comeback:
In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, he said, "whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power America in an Arab land with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Gulf_War
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. So...............what did he do about it?
Had the UN weapons inspectors go in and destroy them.

And guess what? It worked.

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YDogg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
11. I heard something like that on Hardball about 20 mins ago ...
... and Tweety just let it slide. Some such BS as " so did the last administration" (believe there were WMDs).

Such a copout. It ignores everything that has happened under bush, as if he has had no influence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeytherat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. But (to wingnuts) Bill Clinton is a serial liar, a commie, a murderer,
a traitor, a scumbag, The Worst President Ever...

and yet these people cite him as an example for Iraq War 2's necessity?

Wow. I mean, wow.

How far is Shrubby in the hole when freeptards use Slick Willy to prop him up?

mikey_the_rat

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
31. Exactly
I'd remind them: "and here I thought you hated Clinton and he was a liar to you...so you believe him?" Make them the fool they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
13. Clinton didn't rush into an ill-advised invasion of Iraq either, did he?
That's always my comeback.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. And who told Clinton that SH had WMD? Why, Rumsfeld!!
In 1998: "Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an "open letter" to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate "the threat posed by Saddam." It urged Clinton to "provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish."

Lots more here: http://www.democracynow.org/static/rumsfeldcloset.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosco T. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
15. Comeback#2: "Clinton didn't kill 100,000 Iraquis to make money". n/m
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Good one ~ and .....
yes, Clinton was told that by former members of the Reagan/Bush administration who would know, since they sold him the weapons materials for over a decade. They, and Saddam no doubt have the receipts.

But, that was in 1998, before he (Clinton) disarmed the country when he launched Desert Fox, a four day campaign on the remnants of Saddam's WMD, given to him by the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.

Democrats, always cleaning up Republican messes!!

Oh, and all those other quotes, Gore etc., are mostly dated '1998'. I've been given those quotes by rightwingers trying (hilariously considering how they despise him) to use Clinton to justify Bush's crimes!

Whenever I tell rightwingers about Operation Desert Fox, they have no idea it ever happened. They were way too busy calling everything Clinton did a 'wag the dog' affair. I remember Trent Lott saying at the time that he while he 'supported the troops' he wouldn't 'support this president'!!

We have to remember that rightwingers are ignorant of anything that was going on in the nineties in the way of real news, because the 'liberal media' never covered it, and wasted hours and hours of air-time on a personal affair between two consenting adults.

Freepers were being thoroughly indoctrinated by Rush et al about Monica and other important matters in the nineties. As a result, they are completely ignorant of everything else, and are shocked when confronted with what was really going on back then. They do become quite violent when they are informed of all they did not know, so be careful when you deliver the facts to them. They absolutely HATE facts! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
16. And how much intel came from the Reagan/Bush CIA?
Also, remember all the insults and jokes hurled at Clinton back in the late-90s? Every time he said or did something relating to Saddam or al Qaeda, the repukes would crucify him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fozzledick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
18. "So a lie becomes the truth if you fool someone into believing it ?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
19. this is not about thinking Saddam had WMDs
this is a different ballgame. thinking saddam had WMDs is not the issue. it's about breaking the law. it's about starting a war. it's about fabricating evidence and lying to the american people. did clinton do any of that? Don't stoop to their level. The comeback to this is sooooo obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noahmijo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. Yup that's the difference right there!
When they bring up "But even Democrats thought Saddam was bad!!" yea and they were right Saddam was bad.

BUT THEY NEVER ADVOCATED INVASION AND CREATING IRAQNAM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Even old man Bush knew better
Thats why he stopped before he got to Baghdad in 1991. He said so in his book.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noahmijo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. I love that line in "Three Kings" when Clooney says
something to the effect of "We're not staying here we don't need another Vietnam"

I forget if it was his own line or if he was supposedly quoting old man Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Here are the old mans exact words
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp

In Chapter 19, which discusses the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War (also known as "Desert Storm," the military operation to liberate Kuwait from occupation by invading Iraqi forces), they wrote:


Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different and perhaps barren outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noahmijo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Thanks! (Filed for talking point)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
21. Some wingnut from the National Review throws that at Tweety today.
He dismissed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
23. But you (Republicans) spent years telling us
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 05:44 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
how unreliable Clinton is! What are you telling us now? That you were not only idiots, but an aggressive and dangerous liability to the nation over all that period of time, fiercely seeking to undermine the efforts of a wise President to govern the nation, in any way you could? Is that what you're trying to say? You want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oregonindy Donating Member (790 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
26. Clinton wasnt a traitor and didnt forge documents and out a CIA agent
to start an illegal war
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
28. Who cares what the right wing nutcases say? We know how they blame
or 'embrace' Clinton whenever it suits their evil agenda. They are so very transparent, it's a wonder anyone believes their out right crap anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
29. PERFECT COMEBACK: HE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

snip


http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
30. My response to that is
"so what? Clinton isn't president anymore. Bush is. Bush isn't man enough to do something without Clinton? Sounds to me like Bush is a pussy." It shouldn't matter if Clinton thought that or said he thought so. He doesn't have any power. Bush was president when we invaded Iraq. The buck stops with him. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
32. Lots of people believed the WMD lies until
the evidence was made public. By the time the war started, at the very least, Bush knew there were serious flaws in the intelligence. The aluminum tube story fell flat. Niger documents turned out to be forgeries. Satellite intelligence didn't check out when inspectors on the ground followed up on it.

I have made a much longer list of what was known to the world about WMD intelligence problems while Bush was still selling that case for war.

I think Clinton and others mostly based their belief that Saddam had WMD on Saddam's lack of cooperation with U.N. inspectors. They figured he had to be hiding something. But, under Bush, Saddam started cooperating completely. So the hiding something logic was no longer viable.

Bush knew it all wasn't true, or at least knew there was no good reason to believe any of it was true. Clinton didn't know.

That's the difference between a lie and a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
34. I wouldn't have supported an invasion whether it was Clinton OR Bush.
Of course, when I tell that to Clinton-haters all they say is "Easy to say now." :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
35. Yes, he did. But he didn't stand in front of a joint session of
Congress and the American people and state that Iraq definitively had WMD. Thinking that they did and cooking the intelligence are two very, very different things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fescue4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
39. Most people thought he had WMDs
Most of our allies did including France and Germany.

Saddam acted as though he had WMDs, while saying that he didnt.

Its true there was a few experts and lay people who said he didnt, but the "common knowledge" was that Saddam had'm.

Prewar, there was really no (or little) dispute that Saddam had WMDs. What was the question, was how to deal with it.

Only Bush was dumb enough to take the bait and start a Holy war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
40. Instant comeback: Clinton wore Home of the Whopper boxer shorts
and has a 10 inch mr chubby..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlavesandBulldozers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
41. Perfect comeback: But i thought we went in to give them liberty
and perteckt ar freedumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC