At first I thought that the first video was more important since it showed Dems talking about WMDs as late as 2003. But if you really pay attention to what Clinton says on the second video (Saddam’s wasting his ‘last chance’, and how he blocked inspectoirs, and how the only solution was regime change) you can basically see why it was so easy for Bush to get the war against Iraq going. Until after the invasion was pretty much basic knowledge that Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with at some point, and 9/11 was a great catalist.
“Until after the invasion was pretty much basic knowledge that Iraq was a threat”
Arent you mixing up the contexts? Clinton is saying that in 1998, before the Desert Fox war: there was a list of targets, and a week later they were destroyed. What happened in 2002 was very different: there was very little intelligence regarding targets, and the notion of Iraq as a threat was questioned outside US.
It doesnt seem right to list the reasons for the attack in 98 and somehow link them to the events of 2002.
Saddam probably didn’t produce *any* WMDs after the 1991 war. So, basically everyone was wrong about Iraqs WMDs for quite a long time. Of course, Saddam was still to blame because he used deception to project the idea that was not the case… but that doesn’t change the fact that our intel was wrong, period.
However, like I said, many things that Clinton talks about are simply identical to the arguments Bush used in 2003: regime change, about giving Saddam chances and he wasting them, etc, etc. All of that, along with the fact that intel was wrong in both cases, show that this idea that Bush “invented” the war in Iraq is a stupid fantasy.
The mission statement in your video up above already says that: the objective was to “degrade the capacity” to produce WMD. Hence the target list: research centers, electronics factories, the biological studies center in the University of Baghdad.
The report PDF in your link tells how Iraq was ramping up their “research on delivery systems” in 96-98, between the Oil-for-Food program and kicking out the UN inspectors. That was the target, so in a sense the 2004 PDF confirms the intel of 1998.
In 1998 the stated threat was the possibility of future capabilities; in 2002 the stated threat was the actual existence of mobile WMDs. According to the U.S. arms inspector 2004 report, the 1998 threat was true and the 2002 threat wasn’t.
I think serious people don’t believe Bush invented a war, but that the administration exaggerated a threat that wasn’t there. You should stop talking to these liberal nuts… 🙂
hahahaha, come on man! so you like to play this kind of game too?
Listen to what Bill is saying. He is saying that we were attacking Saddam because we simply didn’t know if/when/how he destroyed all the WMDs he had. When he said “degrade capacity” he meant that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs, which the report in 2004 proves that is not the case! So using this logic, our invasion in 2003 was the ultimate “degrader” because now Saddam is not there! Which is also something Bill mentions multiple times as the real solution for the problem…