Is it just possible that PRES. CLINTON defeated Saddam's WMD program?

[brentspeak]

The Republicans/Freepers love to cite quotes made by BC in 1997 and 1998 concerning Saddam's WMD efforts.

OK, so Clinton attacked Iraq several times with missiles, as well as maintaining the embargo (a very draconian one, I might add).

2003: Bush launches invasion. No WMD in sight. "Gee, I wonder what happened to them; or maybe we were wrong?"

Or maybe, Saddam flinched back in 1998. Looks like President Clinton was the one who won the day.

[H2O Man]

1. Yes, and ....

Clinton made our military stronger than eith Reagan or Bush1.

[wuushew]

2. That too was illegal

possession of WMD by Iraq was in no way related to the resolved matter of their occupation of Kuwait. That matter was solved in 1991.

We can voice disapproval at what Saddam did or refuse to trade with him, but I cannot approve of using military force against a soverign country which did not do anything to us at all. Our bombing killed people. Did Saddam's non-existent WMD kill anyone?

[Igel]

3. Depends if you believe the lone report absolving

Saddam of Halabja or not, doesn't it?

[wuushew]

8. Halabja is inside Iraq

There is no consensus about the ability to violate sovereignty in internal strife matters(which were directly related to the Iran-Iraq war at the time, which we of course did not stop). Hopefully Kosovo is not the new gold standard since it just makes even more clear that U.S. foreign policy uses faux international law as cover and as a pretense to obtaining larger goals.

Look at all these places: Israel, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Chile, Iraq, etc. What decides when and where the mighty fist of U.S. power is used? The answer of course is political and influenced greatly by money. If law cannot be used impartially it is useless, as it is now it simply provides false legitimacy to unilateral U.S. goals.

[Igel]

9. I addressed one point:

"Did Saddam's non-existent WMD kill anyone?"

Your response presupposes that he did, and they weren't non-existent.

There is also no consensus on things like Tibet and Taiwan, or even what it takes to establish sovereignty.

"What decides when and where the mighty fist of ... power is used? The answer of course is political and influenced greatly by money. If law cannot be used impartially it is useless, as it is now it simply provides false legitimacy to unilateral ... goals."

I would add "honor" to the list of things influencing where power is used.

[wuushew]

10. But the original question deals with post 1991 events

Are you saying that non-verifiable events in 1988 were the direct cause of U.S. actions in the 1990s?

[damntexdem]

4. Actually, I think there was evidence that the WMDs were gone by 1995.

Which, of course, doesn't mean that Clinton shouldn't get the credit, whether or not he did anything at the time -- after all, the conservatives blame him for anything and everything, whether or not he had done anything.

[WilliamPitt]

5. Possible? Definite.

He inherited the problem in 1993, and used sanctions, inspectors and a variety of pointed military strikes to get rid of the stuff. Many people think the sanctions were evil, and they did do amazing damage to the Iraqi population (with great assistance from Hussein), but those three things combined are a lot of the reason there wasn't anything to find over there.

Here, you can read about it:

[Jack Rabbit]

6. It looks more like Bush the Preppy did

The documents suggest that Iraq destroyed its weapons months after the 1991 War ended. According to the testimony of the late General Kamel, the Iraqis didn't want the UN inspectors to find anything, so they destroyed them.

Scott Ritter said that by the time weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, there was little left and what was left would have been impotent by 2003. Unfortunately, some members of Congress were just as intent on war as was Bush and refused to call Ritter to testify, even though he was the UN chief weapons inspector. One would think his opinion would be of some value, for that if no other reason.

So, giving credit where credit is due: Bush the Preppy destroyed the weapons, probably without knowing it; Clinton prevented Saddam from rebuilding them (assuming he had any intention of doing so); and, in the early days of the administration of Bush the Frat Boy, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell both acknowledge that Saddam was no longer a threat. It was only after September 11 that the regime started rewriting history to justify an invasion of Iraq.

[ComerPerro]

7. Its irrelevant. The biggest point is: Clinton never sent in ground troops

Clinton didn't drag us into a war that seems to be without end.