The Bush Administration is being constantly criticized for it's omissions or lack there of concerning the WMD in Iraq. I believe that the reason for this is because the war was definitivley successful with minimal casualties (200), yet our hearts go out to the families of those that died in glory.

This REPORT from the Defense Intelligence Agency supports that there was no credible evidence that Iraq retained weapons described by administration officials.

But this thread is more so asking why are so many Dems/Libs in government positions questioning the credibility of Bush's evidence when they certainly didn't question Clinton...and in fact supported him in his resolve to use force.

Clinton's actions involved relatively low risk. Rather than losing 200 troops, we lost no troops and risked only the lives of pilots--which is not to say that isn't important, too. For mrspigpen, hubby, and kids, extremely important.

Abs,
    True, but under the auspices of this President and this last campaign in the Iraq, that regime will never ever again bother the Iraqi's.

If Bush lied, so did Clinton, if I could upload a pic, I could show you the letter written to Clinton about the WMD's of iraq, and urging Clinton to take Saddam out of power, and there is other places on this forum about CIA reports on iraq's WMD's. 

And you want me to prove Al-qaeda ties ?  only thing you'll say is the news is "to far to the right", and it's "propoganda", but I'll show you anyway. 

I have pictures of satellite photos showing Iraq training Al-Qaeda in a boeing 747, or some plane like that, that America sold to iraq (way back when I dunno), on other forum sites I used to goto, I proved Al-Qaeda ties time after time, British forces captured Iraqi troops, and the iraqi's explained the Al-Qaeda ties to iraq, and out of everything I said, no one would stop saying there was no ties to al-qaeda and iraq untill a friend of mine showd where CNN and AP straight up said "link found", simply ignorancy. 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/...8653833092.html (Al-Qaeda fighting with Iraqis, British claim),

http://www.channelonenews.com/articles/200.../04/28/ap_iraq/ (Link found),

there is alot more proof then what is shown in that link, I just don't got the membership to a website showing the achives.   

I checked out your links and read the articles.  Sorry, nothing is proven.  I want to see pictures, hear recordings, have testimony from members of both Saddam's administration and Al-Qaeda, and most importantly, a money trail.  There is currently none of this. 

Iraq had a large VX production underway, and has not offered any evidence that the capability and stockpile have been destroyed. In 1996, Iraq admitted it had produced at least 3.9 tons of VX and at least 600 tons of ingredients to make it. (It is one of the deadliest forms of nerve gas and easily storable.)
 
  Defection of Iraqi Lt. Gen. Hussein Majid, formerly in charge of WMD programs, led Iraq to admit its bio-weapon program in August 1995. Baghdad admitted to producing 90,000 liters of Botulinium toxin, 8,300 liters of Anthrax, and significant quantities of other agents, plus a laboratory and industrial-scale facility to continue production.
 
  Defectors reported in December 2001 and March 2002 the existence of mobile germ laboratories disguised as milk delivery trucks, and a network of underground bunkers for chemical and biological weapons production. U.S. officials released evidence on March 8, 2002, allegedly showing that Iraq has been converting dump trucks bought through a UN humanitarian program into military vehicles, in violation of UN sanctions. An Iraqi defector stated that he had converted Renault trucks into mobile laboratories with incubators for bacteria, microscopes and air conditioning.
 
  Intelligence reports indicate that Iraq is also developing newer and longer range missiles, with initial ranges of 600-700 miles; far enough to hit Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Ankara in Turkey, Cairo and Alexandria in Egypt, and Tehran in Iran. During Desert Storm, Iraq launched some 45 Scud missiles: one at Bahrain, five or six at Saudi Arabia, and 39 into Israel. Development of the Al Samoud liquid-propellant missile is ongoing; Iraq also is actively developing solid-propellant engines to build a multi-stage surface-to-surface missile.
 
  Several reports indicate that Iraq is closer to a nuclear bomb than most people think. It has an efficient nuclear bomb design - with the new warhead weighing only about 1,300 pounds and 2 feet in diameter. The one thing lacking is fissile material to fuel it. Nuclear weapon specialists estimate if Saddam could buy the materials he is missing, it would only be a matter of months until Iraq created a weapon.
 
  In January 2002, U.S. intelligence sources estimated the United States could face a ballistic missile threat from Iraq by the year 2015, well before such a threat emerged from Iran or North Korea.
 
  Rumsfeld stated on April 15, 2002, that new equipment had allowed Iraq's weapon program to become more mobile, "enabling them to go underground to a greater extent than they had previously."

A major difference between the two conflicts is pretty simple. The Dems are more willing to put partisan politics above national security.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

No...they have a new regime to worry about.  This new regime is that of imperialist American martial law.  By some chance, should the U.S. allow Iraq to govern itself

We knock over the leadership of a sovereign nation to save its people from its mean leader.  We claim its because he supports terrorism

possesses weapons of mass destruction just like we have

and is a threat to the world

But at no point was it ever about conquering a land rich with sweet, luscious, beautiful Texas tea.  Oh no...that has nothing to do with it.

Nothing would be better in my eyes, the total destruction of that country full of people bred to hate America and American's is what that country and a few others need

Platypus is correct, sniper.  Advocating genocide is a quick way to get banned around here. 

Again scuds were on the list, do you remember seeing a scud land just about in a mall in kuwait, or is this not enough proof for you,  we don't use our weapons in aggression and that is a huge difference

BLITZER: The missile attacks here in Kuwait, I think there have been 14. One of them, the other night, as you well know, hit a popular shopping mall right in the center of Kuwait City.

How scared, how worried, should people in Kuwait be that more of these kinds of missiles will hit Kuwait?

MYERS: Well, the fact is, you never know. But there has been, and continues to be, a very big effort on the Al Faw peninsula, which is just north of there, where we think this anti-ship missile was fired from, to find out where there might be more, if there are more.

They are not a very accurate missile. We have folks on the ground looking for locations. I would not be personally too worried about that.

In terms of the surface-to-surface missiles, the longer range missiles that have been fired, those that have been a factor to Kuwait population centers have been engaged by either Kuwaiti or coalition Patriot batteries, and we've had very successful engagements. Many of those missiles, which aren't particularly accurate as well, have landed harmlessly either in the water or in the desert, and often they aren't even engaged when they know it's going to an area that is not inhabited.

But I think the precautions that the Kuwaiti population has taken are prudent, and I think that the efforts you see the coalition forces using to try to make sure there are not pockets left where they might be able to hide launchers, I think we're doing everything we can do to protect not only the Kuwaiti population, but the population in Saudi Arabia, in Jordan, in Israel and in Turkey. And we will continue to do that.

BLITZER: All of the missiles fired so far have either been the Ababil or the Al-Samoud or, as you say, that Silkworm type of missile. Have they fired one Scud missile yet?

MYERS: To my knowledge, they have not fired one Scud. As you know, the intelligence estimates were before that they could put together from pieces that they had left over from previous inspections somewhere between a dozen and maybe two dozen Scud missiles.

Again scuds were on the list, do you remember seeing a scud land just about in a mall in kuwait, or is this not enough proof for you,  we don't use our weapons in aggression and that is a huge difference

Nothing would be better in my eyes, the total destruction of that country full of people bred to hate America and American's is what that country and a few others need

For everyone with the same questions and need for proof

Again scuds were on the list, do you remember seeing a scud land just about in a mall in kuwait, or is this not enough proof for you,  we don't use our weapons in aggression and that is a huge difference

Let me ask a question how come i don't here anyone screaming about who is responsible for the USS Cole, how about 1 more question why was the country that boat left from not held responsible,   how about worring about your own as much as you worry about outsiders, we lose 22 men in a total act of war and no one does anything i didn't see any protesters in NY holding up traffic laying in the streets for those DEAD Americans but everyone is always ready to jump on the wrong side and protest , question , accuse our own country of wrong doing.   Why?

If Clinton had seen it through, I suspect there would be as many inquiries and suspicions

Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes

But a preemptive war? I would not have supported it if Clinton had done it, either, regardless of how bad a man Saddam Hussein was, or how much I liked Clinton.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

In a quick three day strike, without the ability to truly discern the quality and content of Clinton's claims, there doesn't seem to have been the same resources or necessity for questioning his credibility.

It seems to me that most of the discussion thread has been avoiding the issue. Rather than discuss whether or not Clinton had sufficient cause in bombing Iraq some engage in equivocation involving the difference in the scope of the two campaigns (Desert Fox and Iraqi Freedom). The fact is Clinton and Bush both claimed the threat of Iraqi WMD was a "clear and present danger" to our safety as americans. If Bush lied then his predecessor line of reasoning (Clinton) probably lied also...

So, with all of the intelligence that Bush had why not do strategic strikes like Clinton did? No alienation of allies, no questioning the relevence of the UN Security council, no occupation or reconstruction, very little risk to US troops, no questions about blood for oil, etc.

Unless, as we now know, he couldn't because he had no idea where the weapons were.

Which begs the question...how do we know the tons of missing WMD'S we went to war over had not already been destroyed by Clinton's strategic strikes?

Rather than discuss whether or not Clinton had sufficient cause in bombing Iraq some engage in equivocation involving the difference in the scope of the two campaigns (Desert Fox and Iraqi Freedom).

So, with all of the intelligence that Bush had why not do strategic strikes like Clinton did? No alienation of allies, no questioning the relevence of the UN Security council, no occupation or reconstruction, very little risk to US troops, no questions about blood for oil, etc. 

It is no surprise that the Russian parliament, the State Duma, has been vitriolic.

Some extreme deputies have called President Clinton a "sexual maniac".

It is a view echoed in the Russian press, with the normally liberal newspaper Kommersant running a banner headline on its front page "A military-sexual romance" ["voenno-polovoi roman"] telling its readers that "Iraqi children are suffering for Clinton's love" ["Irakskiye deti stradayut za lyubov' Klintona"]. ...Far more unusual is the reaction of the Russian executive, which has recalled its ambassadors from Washington and London.

The last time an ambassador was recalled to Moscow from either Washington or London was in 1971 over a spying row with the UK.

In the morning of 17th December, the United States and Britain delivered missile and bombing strikes against installations based on Iraqi territory.

This resulted in casualties and serious material damage. Such a development of events, which Russia has firmly opposed, gives rise to very grave concern, indignation, and deep anxiety.

The resolutions on Iraq adopted by the UN Security Council do not provide any basis whatsoever for actions of this sort.

By carrying out unprovoked military action, the USA and Britain have crudely violated the UN Charter and the universally-accepted principles of international law as well as the norms and rules governing the responsible conduct of states in the international arena.

The military strike was delivered precisely at the moment when the Security Council was discussing the Iraq problem.

This can essentially be regarded as a step that undermines the entire system of international security, of which the UN and its Security Council are the linchpins.

Russia consistently undertook intensive efforts aimed at settling the Iraq problem as soon as possible.

We remain confident that the potential for finding a political and diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis has been far from exhausted.

This was borne out on the whole by the normal process of cooperation taking place recently between Iraq and the UN.

It is outrageous that the countries carrying out these military operations did not deem it possible to continue searching for a political settlement using political means.

The military strikes have inflicted grave damage to the immense amount of work done in recent years to bring about a post-crisis settlement in the Persian Gulf area and dismantle the potential of Iraq's mass destruction weapons and their means of delivery.

Russia demands that actions involving the use of military force should be stopped immediately, that restraint and prudence be shown and that a further escalation of the conflict be prevented because an escalation of the conflict would be fraught with the most dramatic consequences not only for finding a settlement of the Iraq problem but also for stability in the region as a whole.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

The difference is, we sent our military to another part of the world, invaded a country that has not attacked us, killed anybody trying to defend their country, killed anybody unfortunate enough to be in the way, overtook all their metropolitan areas, and toppled their government.

Wasn't Shock and Awe strategic striking.  Also, wasn't it Clinton who bombed an aspirin factory for one of his strategic strikes?   Also Danya, I highly doubt that the Liberal Party would not pluck apart the strategic strikes if, hypothetically Bush chose that option.

CP 

So, with all of the intelligence that Bush had why not do strategic strikes like Clinton did? No alienation of allies, no questioning the relevence of the UN Security council, no occupation or reconstruction, very little risk to US troops, no questions about blood for oil, etc. 

Deflecting critisism from no one but the democratic party would be much easier than what he's faced with now, don't you think? 

Unfortunately (in my opinion), both Bush and Clinton had a long (and remarkably similar,see my previous post) list of opponents of thier military actions. The more I look at this, the more similarities I see...

Hell is now freezing over.

...and no resolution of the problem, just leaving it all for the next guy.

Had he had the fortitude to do what needed to be done in the first place, Iraq would already be a democracy by now.