• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

USA-1 said:
There could have been a hundred reasons for invading Iraq, but the only legitmate reason for the USA to invade any country is an imminant threat to our security.
Click to expand...
That's false. He invaded one of our allies, the ceasefire was conditional, he violated the conditions of the ceasefire.
 
buck said:
I don't care what many people said. Althoguh, I really don't recall "many" stating that Clinton was lying when he said that Iraq had WMD's. I only recall the conversation being about what to do about it and that the timing was circumspect. However, did you say it? Do you claim that Clinton lied when he started the bombing campaign?
Click to expand...

Hard to prove today, but yes I doubted him and opposed his bombing. However, here's an overview of criticism:

Criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)
 
Boo Radley said:
Hard to prove today, but yes I doubted him and opposed his bombing. However, here's an overview of criticism:
Click to expand...

I really wasn't asking if you opposed the bombing. Many people did for a variety of reasons.

I guess you kind of answered my question by saying you doubted him. So,just to be clear, are you claiming that Clinton lied about Saddam's WMD?
 
Last edited:
buck said:
I really wasn't asking if you opposed the bombing. Many people did for a variety of reasons.

I guess you kind of answered my question by saying you doubted him. So, are you then claiming that Clinton lied in order to bomb Iraq?
Click to expand...

What was his claim? As I recall, his people said the threat was over after the bombing, meaning that after that, Saddam did not have wmds. His claim inspectors were kicked out was wrong. And I can't recall any evidence that anything they bombed was actually a factory.

However, what I find funny is that you would think that Clinton's lies would justify Bush's lies. No matter what Clinton did or how anyone reacted to Clinton, something no one can really prove now, means absolutely nothing concerning what Bush did. If Bush lied, and he did, then he lied. It is as simple as that.
 
USA-1 said:
Only a total fool actually still believes it was in our best interests to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...
Whether or not removing Saddam was the right call, is something that's highly debatable. It's like arguing about the taste of beef vs pork. To say that one side is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong, is a closed minded way of looking at the issue.


USA-1 said:
Admit it. Had it been Clinton that invaded and no WMD stockpiles were found you would have crucified him. You are just protecting your boy.
Click to expand...
That doesn't seem likely. Republicans were against Clinton's war on Yugoslavia, but once it started, they kept their mouths shut. OTOH, how would Democrats feel if Clinton had been the one who removed Saddam?
 
Boo Radley said:
What was his claim? As I recall, his people said the threat was over after the bombing, meaning that after that, Saddam did not have wmds. His claim inspectors were kicked out was wrong. And I can't recall any evidence that anything they bombed was actually a factory.
Click to expand...

Clinton's claim was that he ordered the bombings in order to "diminish" the capabilities of Saddam to use his WMDs. Please note the use of the word "diminish" not "eliminate". Anyway, will you now claim that Clinton lied?

However, what I find funny is that you would think that Clinton's lies would justify Bush's lies. No matter what Clinton did or how anyone reacted to Clinton, something no one can really prove now, means absolutely nothing concerning what Bush did. If Bush lied, and he did, then he lied. It is as simple as that.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that Clinton lied, and I don't believe Bush lied. I believe both acted upon the preponderance of information as provided by multiple sources and countries. If you tell me that you believed Clinton was lying back then, i'll believe you. I won't ask for proof. I'm simply looking for consistency. If you're consistent, I would believe you to be wrong, but really wouldn't argue it much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
Clinton's claim was that he ordered the bombings in order to "diminish" the capabilities of Saddam to use his WMDs. Please note the use of the word "diminish" not "eliminate". Anyway, will you now claim that Clinton lied?
Click to expand...

Yes diminsh. Sounds right. However, not equal to the claim that Saddam had a growing and gathering program. Not even a claim that he had a program at the time. Clinton was much more careful with his words. I believe it is quite possible he misled, but did not reach Bush's level. Nor was he foolish enough tio invade, keeping the cost all around much lower.


I don't believe that Clinton lied, and I don't believe Bush lied. I believe both acted upon the preponderance of information as provided by multiple sources and countries. If you tell me that you believed Clinton was lying back then, i'll believe you. I won't ask for proof. I'm simply looking for consistency. If you're consistent, I would believe you to be wrong, but really wouldn't argue it much.
Click to expand...

And I would disagree. Bush had no more intel than Clinton had, when Clinton called the threat over. Bush and his people purposefully used intel not considered before, intel not considered because it was doubted. And it was doubted with good reason. Bush made claims that had no basis in fact, gorwing and gathering, and his people made illusions to connections that were not there (links to al Qaeda). And they took it where Clinton did not, to invasion and a much greater cost.

Your call for consistency is based ont he false assumption that the two are identical with no differences of importance. That is simply not true. So, while I may well have disagree and doubted Clinton's honesty, he was quick and keep the cost low, and did not take the lie as far as Bush did. So, to expect uequal things to be treated equally is a kind of relatism that is illogical.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes diminsh. Sounds right. However, not equal to the claim that Saddam had a growing and gathering program. Not even a claim that he had a program at the time. Clinton was much more careful with his words. I believe it is quite possible he misled, but did not reach Bush's level. Nor was he foolish enough tio invade, keeping the cost all around much lower.
Click to expand...

You can spin it any way you want. However, Clinton ordered the bombings because he thought Saddam was a threat and had a growing WMD program. That is why he ordered the bombings of places that he believed to be storing WMDs as well as the places that he believed to be WMD research facilities and production plants. Clinton was trying to diminish that threat by bombing those places. In other words, he said pretty much the same thing Bush (and many other intelligence communities) said. With the exception that Bush was attempting to "eliminate", and not just "diminish" the perceived threat.

Your call for consistency is based ont he false assumption that the two are identical with no differences of importance. That is simply not true. So, while I may well have disagree and doubted Clinton's honesty, he was quick and keep the cost low, and did not take the lie as far as Bush did. So, to expect uequal things to be treated equally is a kind of relatism that is illogical.
Click to expand...

Oh. OK. Now we're getting somewhere. Apparently I had the wrong definition of lie. I didn’t realize that the definition was that it is only a lie if a maximum of 2,000 died as a result of the “false” statement. Apparently, according to you, when only 2,000.00 die it’s not to be defined as a lie. Instead we'll just say "we doubted his honesty". *wink* *wink*.

Or... and I realize i'm obviously talking wacko here... it’s only a lie if a republican does it. When a democrat does the same thing, it’s not not to be defined as a lie.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
You can spin it any way you want. However, Clinton ordered the bombings because he thought Saddam was a threat and had a growing WMD program. That is why he ordered the bombings of places that he believed to be storing WMDs as well as the places that he believed to be WMD research facilities and production plants. Clinton was trying to diminish that threat by bombing those places. In other words, he said pretty much the same thing Bush (and many other intelligence communities) said. With the exception that Bush was attempting to "eliminate", and not just "diminish" the perceived threat.
Click to expand...

Not convinced he really did think that, or if he just needed a diversion, but I do know he said the threat was ended after the bombing, and he never made the claim Bush did. His claim was different.



Oh. OK. Now we're getting somewhere. Apparently I had the wrong definition of lie. I didn’t realize that the definition was that it is only a lie if a maximum of 2,000 died as a result of the “false” statement. Apparently, according to you, when only 2,000.00 die it’s not to be defined as a lie. Instead we'll just say "we doubted his honesty". *wink* *wink*.

Or... and I realize i'm obviously talking wacko here... it’s only a lie if a republican does it. When a democrat does the same thing, it’s not not to be defined as a lie.
Click to expand...

No, not correct. I may well argue that not all lies are equal. How much the lie costs us does matter, but not exactly what I'm claiming here. I'm claiming Clinton was more careful with his words. He made sure he didn't overstate too much. He said he was diminishing, making how much Saddam had or didn't have wasn't part of the claim. While this allows the audience to put whatever specifics they want to it, he would have much more deniablity than Bush had.

Bush was more careless, which is why one conservative group Muley (a supporter of the war) on WS linked claimed the only mistake Bush made was telling the wrong lie, one too easily shown false. Bush made larger, more inaccurate claims, that required the audience to not just mistakenly fill in blanks, but accept in full completely inaccurate claims.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm claiming Clinton was more careful with his words. He made sure he didn't overstate too much. He said he was diminishing, making how much Saddam had or didn't have wasn't part of the claim. While this allows the audience to put whatever specifics they want to it, he would have much more deniablity than Bush had.
Click to expand...

That's really what you're gonig to go with?

Anyway, Clinton said that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. Saddam had WMD research and production facilities. He was going to bomb him in order to make the threat smaller then it was. Iin other words, it was a threat that was growing and getting bigger based on the administration's many statements of WMD research and production.

So, I ask again, when Clinton made those statements, was he lying? I don't care whos lie you beleive to be more consequential. I couldn't care less about what you think either admin should have done about the perceived threat. Don't care which lie you belive had more specifics. I am simply asking, do you, Mr. Boo Radley, believe that Clniton lied when he made the statements?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
That's really what you're gonig to go with?

Anyway, Clinton said that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. Saddam had WMD research and production facilities. He was going to bomb him in order to make the threat smaller then it was. Iin other words, it was a threat that was growing and getting bigger based on the administration's many statements of WMD research and production.

So, I ask again, when Clinton made those statements, was he lying? I don't care whos lie was more consequential. I couldn't care less about what you think either admin should have done about the perceived threat. I am simply asking, do you, Mr. Boo Radley, believe that Clniton lied when he made the statements?
Click to expand...

I don't recall that. Link that. And did he change that claim after the bombing?
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't recall that. Link that. And did he change that claim after the bombing?
Click to expand...

One caveat, when i said CLinton said, I meant his administration - I apologize for my error. However, yes. Clinton's quotes are included:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
Click to expand...

Who cares wether or not they changed their opinion after the bombing. That doesn't even have anything to do with the conversation we were having. Just a little bit ago you claimed that all WMD's were destroyed after the first Gulf war. So, all of these statements made after the Gul war, but before Operation Desert Fox must be lies, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
One caveat, when i said CLinton said, I meant his administration - I apologize for my error. However, yes. Clinton's quotes are included:



Who cares wether or not they changed their opinion after the bombing. That doesn't even have anything to do with the conversation we were having. Just a little bit ago you claimed that all WMD's were destroyed after the first Gulf war. So, all of these statements made after the Gul war, but before Operation Desert Fox must be lies, no?
Click to expand...

It does matter if they chnaged their opinion, but I don't see the gorowing and gathering claim above. They say it is an issue, that over the decasdes he has done so. Again, very careful in what they are saying and not making the sweeping claim Bush made. And Bush made his claim years later, not only after the bombing, but after years of degrading brought on by sanctions and the inability to store such weapons.

Again, not at all equal. Treating unequal things as if they were equal is the definition of bias.
 
I think my point has been made. Anything more will just be beating a dead horse.

Clinton lied and people died. Or at least for people that believe Bush lied and want to remain consistent - of which there are a lot of exmaples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
I think my point has been made. Anything more will just be beating a dead horse.

Clinton lied and people died. Or at least for people that believe Bush lied and want to remain consistent - of which there are a lot of exmaples.
Click to expand...

You're point is based on two different and unequal things being seen as equal. I doubt that stands or is made. Nor do I see how it would excuse Bush in any way.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're point is based on two different and unequal things being seen as equal. I doubt that stands or is made. Nor do I see how it would excuse Bush in any way.
Click to expand...

I know.

During the run up to Desert Fox, Clinton and his administration said Saddam has WMD and is developing/researching them. That, despite your claim that they had been destroyed prior to Desert Fox.

That is completely different then what occured during the runup to the Iraq war.

During the run up to Iraq war, Bush and his administration said Saddam has WMD and is developing/researching them. Again, that despite your claim that they had been destroyed prior to Desert Fox.

I'm sure we can all see how one is a lie but the other is not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
I know.

During the run up to Desert Fox, Clinton and his administration said Saddam has WMD and is developing/researching them. That, despite your claim that they had been destroyed prior to Desert Fox.

That is completely different then what occured during the runup to the Iraq war.

During the run up to Iraq war, Bush and his administration said Saddam has WMD and is developing/researching them. Again, that despite your claim that they had been destroyed prior to Desert Fox.

I'm sure we can all see how one is a lie but the other is not.
Click to expand...

No, Bush's claim was more than he had them. More than researching them. That he had active programs, actively developing and stockpiling. There was no evidence to support that. None. You ahd to bring in the doubted intel in order to even pretend that was true.

You simplfy to the point of being inaccurate. Clinton bomb and destroyed Saddam's capability, and thus eliminnated the possible threat (which is why I note that after is important). you compare unequal things and treat them as if there were equal. They are not.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, Bush's claim was more than he had them. More than researching them. That he had active programs, actively developing and stockpiling.
Click to expand...

but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.- Bill Clinton

You simplfy to the point of being inaccurate. Clinton bomb and destroyed Saddam's capability, and thus eliminnated the possible threat
Click to expand...

"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. - Albright
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.- Bill Clinton
Click to expand...

Was he at that time? I don't know. I do know he wasn't in 2003.

"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. - Albright
Click to expand...

Again, not a claim of growing and gathering. But clear that he was hindered. You have not shown the same level of dishonesty or the same situation, the same knowledge level. You instead start with the assumption everything is the same when the evidence doesn't support that assumption. Two different times, with different circumstances, and one after bombing to hinder him, cause the declaration that the threat was diminished.

Treat unequal things as equal is the definition of bias.
 
Did the article really call decades old mustard gas shells "WMD?"

A glance at the article shows that all they found was weapons left over from the 1980s war and some new weapons insurgents were making.

I wish people would read their own articles before posting them. Embarrassing.
 
tryreading said:
So lob some bombs at the pissant.

But don't invade the capital on a fool's errand.
Click to expand...

That's what Saddam wanted. He felt that once they did that, he would be able to go back to developing and obtaining WMD. At least if the FBI agent that was in charge of questioning Saddam while he was in prison is to be believed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
That's what Saddam wanted. He felt that once they did that, he would be able to go back to developing and obtaining WMD. At least if the FBI agent that was in charge of questioning Saddam while he was in prison is to be believed.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. He hadn't been bombed in years, and still had no new wmds. He had no ability. Wanting is not equal to having. And not equal to making either.
 
obvious Child said:
Did the article really call decades old mustard gas shells "WMD?"

A glance at the article shows that all they found was weapons left over from the 1980s war and some new weapons insurgents were making.

I wish people would read their own articles before posting them. Embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Well, when you want something to be true, anything will do. Sadly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom