Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002

[Fredda Weinberg]

From the Blix report

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

HRC voted to continue the UN process ... we invaded anyway. You can't blame her.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. This is too important to sink n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. The UN process was working, but she voted for war anyway.

I do blame her.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. You've got your dates mixed up ... IWR vote October ... inspectors

back in November. Sorry, but read the report.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. I did. And it is irrelevant.

The inspectors were going back in anyway. The IWR vote was not what put them back in - it was the UN that put them back in.

We all knew that the IWR vote was a green light for Bush. Why didn't she? She was on the Armed Services Committee, had access to much more classified info than any of us had. She KNEW there were no WMDs. The most that ANYVODY expected to find were a few stashes of leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war - and chemical weapons don't have a ten year shelf-life. Saddam's son-in-law admitted publicly that Saddam had all the stores destroy - and was executed for doing so.

The only thing that Blix and the inspectors had to do was spent 6-8 months going to all the suspect sites and confirm that they were clean. Bush kicked them out after 3 months so he could start his war. Just like those of us who were paying attention said he would do.

Your revisionist history was debunked years ago.

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. Read the Blix report. The cooperation was reluctant and in response

to a military buildup. Read what he had to say

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Again, it is irrelevant.

HE HAD NO FUCKING WMDS! He knew it. We knew it. Blix was pretty damn sure of it, but he did, of course, want to VERIFY it - that was his job. Even if there were some leftovers from Gulf I, he had no delivery system. The drones were a lie. The missiles were completely inadequate. Saddam was not a threat.

The point is, Bush intended from the start to prevent any verification that there WERE NO WMDs.

If Hillary though the only reason for IWR was to flex our muscles and look like the tough guy, then her judgement is seriously in question. So, it comes down to: Was she lying, or was she duped?

Is that so hard to understand?

[Fredda Weinberg]

12. What Bush intended from the start was unknowable. HRC did the

responsible thing and yes, we're paying a terrible price for *'s mistakes. Not hers. I get it ... but then again, I was paying close attention at the time.

[karynnj]

4. No the inspections started as the OP says in NOIVEMBER

The vote was in October. Saddam had agreed to inspections before the vote, but there were concerns with what conditions he would set. As it was he was persuaded to allow inspections anywhere - unannounced. The decision to go to war was Bush's in March 2003. That said - although I heard some people speak out - the Clintons with the loudest Democratic voices were mostly silent. (Mostly was added because I realize that though I read a lot - I could have missed something.)

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. HRC holds the same view as the senior senator from NY and

was cooperating w/her colleagues at the time. Remember how she tried to support Spitzer on driver's licenses? She's faithful, but pragmatic.

[Lucinda]

6. Kicking for you Fredda

[Fredda Weinberg]

8. Thank you. This is a good fight n/t

[Lucinda]

10. Yup. People need to get past sound bite misdirections

and look at the specifics of what actually happened.