"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
...
> On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton informed the nation that he had ordered military
> action against Iraq. No less than three times Clinton referred to Iraq's nuclear
> arms or nuclear program.
>
> Example 1: "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 programs and its military
> capacity to threaten its neighbors."
>
> Example 2: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the
> world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons."
>
> Example 3: "And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a
> strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its
> chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."
>
> Notice that in the first example, Clinton speaks of attacking Iraq's nuclear
> program, which obviously requires the known existence — indeed, the location
> — of such a program.
No, it doesn't. I read all three quotes as "We will attack all of the
nasty weapons that Iraq has." If
wombats were credible WMD, he would have included them too. : )
>
> Thus, Clinton's own report to Congress, during the lead up to military action
> against Iraq, contained no substantive information about Iraq's "nuclear arms" or
> "nuclear weapons program." Instead, it emphasized the near total lack of insight
> into such matters.
I don't see how this helps Bush's case much. You're saying, "Clinton
had no evidence", which seems to mean that
Bush was on his own as far as procuring evidence of WMD.
> <The rest of the article is a bit more of a partisan attack>
Thanks for snipping it.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
