Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Something completely missing in most of the stories about the Democrats' recent, poll-driven anti-war "awakaning" is that Bill Clinton himself supported the invasion of Iraq until at least 2004. Repeating the discredited nonsense that kept coming up as excuses:

...Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

The above quote should be seen under the light of Scott Ritter's statement that:

I can tell you what the Intelligence communities of the world were saying. And there was 100% agreement that Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed by 1998. There was not a single intelligence agency out there saying we have hard data that Saddam retains huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction or that he has reconstituted a meaningful WMD program. Not a single agency! And the reason is that because we had weapons inspectors in place and we could bring facts to table to show that Iraq did not had these weapons, that we had accounted for the vast majority of its weapons and there was no evidence of a reconstituted program.

This was a bi-partisan crime.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 09:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series