NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html Wow. I never thought I'd see the day. WTG Bill!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html Wow. I never thought I'd see the day. WTG Bill!!!! Bill knows the score. After all, he was probably briefed on Iraq and Al Queda daily during his 8 years serving as President. While many may disagree with Bush's methods, some of which may have been misguided due to bad CIA intel, Iraq was a scourge that needed to be dealt with since Desert Storm ended. The UN is/was an absolute joke in regards to it's dealings w/Iraq. Saddam did meet and did harbor members of Al Queda before and after 09/11..... regardless of whether Saddam did or did not have a direct link to the terrorist actions undertaken on 09/11. Even the bi-partisan 09/11 Commission is in agreement on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 CK, the 9/11 commission stated (I watch a lot of CSPAN) that Iraq did not work with Al Qaeda or harbor them. AQ tried to inquire a lot of times but the government of Iraq categorically denied them every time. You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said. -- Um...that begs the question of why are we not invading N. Korea and all the other nuclear nations that are relatively unstable? From the Guardian Unlimited: A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands. His book describes the Iraq invasion as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage." Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer. In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them. "For my money, the game was over at Tora Bora," Anonymous said, speaking of the area where we had Osama cornered, but Bush pulled back so he could go after Saddam's oil fields. And hey, let's not forget that AQ made an official statement endorsing Bush for President...No, I'm not making this up. The terrorist group stated that it wished Bush to win because it was not possible to find a leader, "more foolish than you, who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom." http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;j...97&pageNumber=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.