Clinton believed Iraq had WMD

AFP - 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 globalisation.

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 programs 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 after the war. Hundreds of experts are still scouring Iraq in the hunt.

An influential Washington think-tank said the Bush administration "systematically" inflated the threat from Iraq's weapons programs 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.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_54281.asp


Thoughts?
And now to sneak back into the shadows, as the chaos ensues...

You get no arguement from me about it. I even remember seeing a news clip showing Clinton saying that, he was also given the chance to have Osama.

Just weird to me, I also heard that the Clinton administration had a "plan" to invade Iraq but they just weren't able to carry it out (for obvious reasons). Makes me wonder if 9-11 had happened while Clinton was around if they'd have done the same thing.

Our prime minister is an idiot of GWB proportions.
No one here wanted Portugal to get involved with the Iraq thing, but he went on anyway, and is now probably making excuses for his irregular behavior.
I think he was hoping to get some free oil out of it. Or something. Our economy has been going down the drain ever since he got elected.

lol

not only clinton,read below,i could look up a bunch of others but you get the point hehe.

its all about politics,a republican is in office so they have to do whatever they can to make him look bad,including become hypocrites.

just glad we had bush who finally got it done rather then lob a few useless missles over the ocean and then back down.

"We have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
-Sen. Tom Daschle - 1998

"If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and Unscom cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights. . . . Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
-Sen. John Kerry - 1998

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
-- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein."
-- The New York Times February 13, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Iraq Was Planned Before 9/11

Everyone knew about Saddam for a long time. The point is, our president lied to us. We got the bait & switch. He planned this attack in advance and used 9/11 as an excuse, while telling us that this would protect America. Where are those WMDs by the way? Oh yea, Saddam is so slick he destoyed them without us knowing.

Bush Pays Lipservice to Vets, Then Slashes Their Health Care

SOTU Uranium Claim Exposed by Bush Advisory Board

When it comes down to it... who thinks who had what outside the administration is irrelevant.

The Bush administration had reports from various agencies INCLUDING the CIA that stated conclusively that if Iraq had any chemical weapons left, they were so old as to be completely worthless.... that their bioweapons program was defunct... and that their nuclear weapons program had never recovered from the Israelis bombing the hell out of it. Regardless of what Hussein may have wanted, he had no ability to restart any of it. Bush had this information and ignored it.

bush was fed false evidence about alot of things,at the time it was credible,there is yet t obe any proof of bush having knowingly lied about anything.

we had plenty of evidence of WMD before the war.

and that is irrelevent.

we KNEW for a fact in 98 that saddam had alot of WMD,he never provided proof of what heappened to it,it was up to him.

btw misnomer i had discussed that with some people a while back i cant quite recall what it wasmaybe later i can find it,but i cant seem to find it right now,but there was a reason why really that cut is blown out of proportions.

for one i believe it was not an actual "cut" i believe he cut an increase,as in there was an increase in funding coming and he cut some of the increase,not the spending itself.

fact is that the military budget as a whole has jumped billions of dollars (not including war costs) during bush's term.

If we had evidence of WMD's.... then where is it?

For that matter, if we had evidence of WMD's.... where are they? If we had conclusive evidence of them... you'd think that we'd have at least some vague idea of where they were being hidden.

Bush has already had more time than he was willing to give the UN inspectors.

He was also 'fed' reports from his own intelligence service that completely refuted his claims. These reports were swept under the carpet because they were inconvienient.

And after all that..... the entire WMD argument was downplayed after the shooting started. Two days after we invaded the war was suddenly about Hussein being a bad bad man.

Well we already knew about that.... and Mr. Bush and his contemporaries didn't seem to have a problem with it before... like when they were selling the ingredients for nerve gas to the Iraqi military. Yet suddenly it's a pressing issue. More pressing than Hussein having weapons that could be used to attack us.... hmmmm....

Makes you wonder, no?

Some ananlysts think that the US HAS found WMD is Iraq, and is keeping it secret. Question would be why would they do that? If they found them, the administration could pull them out and say "See...haha...we TOLD you." So why keep it secret if they have them?

If you believe that, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying. If they'll go so far as to try and claim that two helium trucks for filling weather balloons are actually mobile chemical weapons labs, you better believe the propaganda machine would be in high gear if they'd actually found anything.

No question. While they may downplay the fact that they haven't found any yet.... it's a substantial political liability, and will only get worse.

The mere fact that a few to the left made similar claims of Saddam's WMDs and nuclear program is irrelevant. The Bush Administration got basically the same intelligence as Clinton. Unfortunately, the intel was just wrong.

If I recall correctly, scientists working in Saddam's nuclear program regularly lied about their progress. They claimed gains where none had been made, because bad news only got them severely punished or killed. A lie coming from a reliable source looks pretty much like the truth.

As for the chemical weapons, they were half right. Stockpiles have been found, but not nearly as much as the experts expected. Also, the stockpiles were determined to be leftovers from the Gulf War era or earlier. Apparently, the coalition may have kicked Saddam's ass much worse than they thought. Again, a half truth that looked good.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm NOT defending Bush, but just pointing out that the CIA was fooled by bad info. Also keep in mind that Bush's opponents made similar claims, but they did not build an overblown case for a war we did not have to fight. They did not piss off our allies, and they did not drain resources away from the hunt for bin Laden. Lastly, they did not stick us with rebuilding a country where the locals use our troops as target practice.

Didn't say I believed it. Just mentioned it to see what kind of response it would elicit.

I'm not so sure about that Teeny. The Niger yellowcake story, as well as the aliminum tubes that were supposed to be for centrifuges used in refining uranium, and the supposed meeting of an al-queda hijacker with an Iraqi defense official were all already seen as dubious by the CIA... long before Powell held them up as damning evidence against Iraq when he made the case for war to the UN. It doesn't appear that the CIA was fooled. It appears more like Bush and co. went fishing for anything to back up their case no matter how unreliable it was.

...and then hung the CIA out to dry when they got caught doing it.

Good godless. Exactly what can you say about a president that makes the CIA of all people look forthright and trustworthy by comparison?

Lastly, they did not stick us with rebuilding a country where the locals use our troops as target practice. [/B][/QUOTE]

Our troops are not sitting ducks. They are not incompetent or suicidal.

Also, only a very small percentage of the population shoots at coalition forces and "traitorous" Iraqis. These "traitorous" Iraqis know that the quickest way the foreign troops will leave is to rebuild the country as fast and peacefully as possible.

[/B]

In a guerrilla war.... anyone who isn't one of the guerrillas is a sitting target.

If Bush hadn't deserted from Vietnam he might realize this.... but even then he probably wouldn't care. It's not HIS ass on the line.

What do you mean he deserted Vietnam? Didn't you see him in his flight suit?

The word's getting out about the truth tho.

Percentages don't matter. There are enough of them to kill one or two of our people on a daily basis. More have died during the so-called post war occupation than the actual war. Getting shot at or blown up does not make them incompetent, and I never said our troops were incompetent. I stand by my comment.

Enough combat stress for a rise in suicide? Probably. I think so.





Many have no body armor. Many were issued soft sided vehicles. Ive read articles that they are not sufficiently equipped in many areas. Ive met women in the post office sending food over because their kids or grandkids units run out of supplies. Sitting ducks? You bet.

The Military records of George Walker Bush

With commentary

Criticizing your own corrupt, incompetant politicians does not, in my book, give you a pass to insult ours; we are quite good enough at doing that ourselves. Since we are being frank, however, Portugal's ass has been in the proverbial sling for a long while now, since 1910 or thereabouts, so you can't just blame the current administration. I think the facts speak well enough for themselves that during the 1960's India trashed your modern navy with their three antiquated destroyers and your government during the seventies not only pissed away three valuable and peaceful colonies (Mocambique, Angola and East Timor), but irresponsibly and inexcuseably left them in a state of utter chaos which lasted for decades and caused the deaths of millions. That they clung the way they did to the worthless Macao, after letting everything else go has always astounded me.