Bush on Iraq/wmd warpath LONG before 9/11. (Feb 2000)

[AccordGTR]

Fact: WTC was bombed 1993 by Ramzi Youseff who was captured in Pakistan 1995, arrested, tried and convicted in NYC.

Fact: Philippine police raided apartment of Ramzi Youseff in Manila before his capture and found in his laptop plans to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into US targets including govt bldgs and the WTC. FBI received this info from the Philippine police.

I bet many Americans forget this piece of US history and think 9/11 was a "surprise attack"

[larryclone]

Stop the lies Obamabots.. CLINTON pushed the WMD/remove Saddam from power line throughout the 90s.

[BI30]

@larryclone Yes, Clinton believed the false "intelligence" being fed to him by PNAC and former Bush-41 Administration officials for years. But following two airstrikes on Saddam's supposed WMD factories... one in late '98 and another in Feb '99... turned up nothing, it was determined Saddam actually had no WMD's and had been disarmed. It wasn't until Dubya declared himself a candidate in Feb 2000 (see my video) that the claim of Saddam having WMD's came up again. He didn't get that from Clinton.

[BI30]

@Masterdebater747 Uh, no. 2000 was an election year. He wasn't elected until November and wasn't inaugurated until January of 2001. Clinton was still President in 2000.

[sonofatiger]

I HAVI realize that when it happened George W. Bush was friends with the bin Laden family and as soon as I found out that the Bush family was friends with bin Laden family it all added up. This is a war crime George Bush needs to be taken in shackles and if he does not go to prison for this crime the rest the world will think that we do not believe in justice and not to believe in justice is a very despicable thing and we should just be considered scum for all the people that died in 911,

[mostro135]

Sly Nicolai...are you really surprised that 'americans' did not know about Halabja?...I am surprised you knew even the name. But what you failed to admit was that those chemical weapons were provided by 'american' and British companies , some even directly by the Pentagon and that your own gov. knew that Saddam was going to use them against the Kurds...PRICELESS the look on your bewildered face. I may respect you as an individual, your uniform NEVER.

[mostro135]

This fucking criminal should be answering for his crimes against humanity...tried , convicted and publicly lynched. The us has to be the dumbest country on the face of this earth to have this fucking MORON "lead" them TWICE!!!.

There is no possible excuse for this type of imbecility. This only corroborates the fact that obesity, sedentary life and excessive TV watching are decimating usans with premature MENTAL RETARDATION.

[jacobew2000]

@mostro135 I assume ur talking about SADDAM, since SADDAM modeled his policies on that of Nazi Germany, and Hitler! Saddam is credited with murdering over a million people during his nearly 55years as president, including gassing, raping (him and his sons are accused of raping hundreds themselves), starting a war with IRAN over his antiislamic views. So who is a criminal against humanity? I would shout SADDAM HUSSAIN!

[BI30]

@jacobew2000 For 21 of those "55 years", Saddam was our buddy (see my video of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand) 18 months after the slaughter in Du Jail that Saddam was eventually executed for. But suddenly, we needed to invade Iraq over his crimes?

[mostro135]

@jacobew2000

funny that you mention ' who is the criminal against humanity'.....well, now that the cat is out of the bag and wikileaks is showing who the REAL criminals against humanity are....do you live under a rock, with the blinds on ?

I am not surprised. Ignorance is bliss.

[jacobew2000]

@mostro135 Yah your ignorance is bliss.. It was a rhetorical comment. I do not believe for a second that BUSH is a war criminal, but many here seem to not have their facts straight. Clinton wouldnt enforce the 1991 ceasefire, and was a horrible president. Wikileaks are murdering our troops with the release! Saddam violated the ceasefire dozens of times with stopping inspections and shooting at our airmen. Only in todays policical correctness is this seen as ok.

[jacobew2000]

Just as any spy, the wikkileaks poster should have a price on his head, and should be looking over his shoulders for the rest of his hopefully short life. He is using classified information as a weopon against the USA just like any one who shoots a gun at someone's head! You can have a peaceful viewpoint against the USA, but he is a threat, and needs taken out, to prove to others that they cant do this in the future, and that is provide material support to our enemies!

[bsjunior]

@jacobew2000 you're a moron.............. or a computer. lol

[bsjunior]

@jacobew2000 you're a moron.............. or a computer. lol. and anybody who thinks like you think is a moron too. so i'm guessing that's your whole family and neighbourhood and church and definately government. I wouldn't even know where to start pointing out the error in your thinking. it's completely back to front.

[jacobew2000]

@bsjunior I am sorry, but you liberals have been spouting the same lies for decades hoping that people will fall for it. Everything i said is FACTUAL. Sadly, Liberals dont want FACTS, they want everyone to fall for EMOTIONS instead.It is also sad that your side keeps saying that the right is intolerant, yet YOUR INTOLERANCE IS INCREDIBLE! Funny thing too, is that I actually dont live in an area that would be charactorized as "conservative". So your just plain dumb in your reply.

[bsjunior]

@jacobew2000 Thank you for your calm reply to my drunken message. If you don't mind could you explain to me the logic behind your assertion that the wikileaks poster should be killed? (price on his head). Wikileaks are giving the public the truth about what is going on. Thats not a crime it's a brave and selfless act. How can you have democracy if the people don't know the truth? Unless, deep down you don't believe in democracy, you actually prefer a imperialist fascist state and it's lies?

[jacobew2000]

@bsjunior The problem is that sometimes the public DOES NOT need to know what is going on in an ongoing war. Maybe after the war, but NOT DURING! In WW2, one famous sayin was "loose lips sink ships". What he did in the release of this secret information, was to provide material support to the enemy of the US. Even in a democrocy, a journalist must know that what he releases would cause death of american soldiers, and thereby should wait sometime after the war to MAYBE release this secret info

[jacobew2000]

@jacobew2000 The Problem with ASSANGE is that he has a real HATRED for the USA, and he is just releasing information to cause harm. His own actions provide proof of that. No responsible journalist would release information that is not "news worthy" and furthermore "not harmful". Releasing information on what one polititican thought of another is not news worthy. Its simply gossip, and he is simply trying to stoke his eggo among other usa haters with that kind of release.

[bsjunior]

@jacobew2000 What you are failing to realise, since you mention WW2, is that the U.S is the aggressor in this war. It is America which is breaking international law, invading countries, killing innocents, supporting tyrannical regimes and so on. As an American you should be disgusted and ashamed of the actions of your government. Don't blame Wikileaks for American casualties, that is plainly ridiculous. The responsibility lies with those who sent them there. Your government. Simple.

[jacobew2000]

@bsjunior Your kidding that America is the aggressor in this war! That is so crazy, I cant imagine anyone stupid enough to even utter that! The Taliban provided safety to Osama Binladin, and their murderers. We went after them in Afganistan, and we were right to do so! Its always sad when innocents die, but you should be blaming them, and not the USA, for those deaths! By your logic, we would not had gotten rid of Hitler, or the Nazis in Europe either!

[bsjunior]

@jacobew2000 In addition, if the public don't know what's going on in the war, how can they judge whether the war is necessary and just OR criminal and gratuitous. I'd say that was a very important judgement, many people are being killed daily. Don't you agree. Now if your government chooses to lie to you about the war, why would you defend them? Patriotism? True patriotism involves defending the guiding principles of your country. Not whichever bunch of criminals happens to run it.

[jacobew2000]

@bsjunior I dont think that the people have the NEED or the RIGHT to every piece of information during an ongoing war. Many things from before WW2, then WW2, Korean war, and Vietnam war, etc, was not know by the American public, often for decades after the war. Doing so often provides information on our countries abilities to defend the USA from other unfriendly nations future actions. Prob with ur argument is that you are assuming we did something wrong by "simply" invading afganistan.

[bsjunior]

@jacobew2000 You're just spouting the official propaganda. If I want to hear the bull crap you're coming up with, all I need to do is turn on FOX news. How about reading some in depth history books. Have you ever heard of something called PERSPECTIVE? Did Iraq invade U.S? Did Afghanistan Invade U.S? Did Vietnam invade U.S? Did Cuba invade U.S? Did Korea invade U.S? Did El Salvador invade U.S? U.S is the BAD GUY, understand it, accept it, start changing it.

[Oddballmarine90]

@bsjunior

Who would u rather see as the number 1 superpower, China or the U.S.?

[bsjunior]

@Oddballmarine90 Firstly your question is childish and simplistic. You seem to be assuming that countries should compete to be "superpowers" like a little boys game of top trummps. Secondly whichever country or business or religion or institution is powerful needs regulating because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thirdly when was the last time China bombed a country? So if we're playing your game...I'll say china.

[Oddballmarine90]

@Oddballmarine90

Wow, you're certainly on a warpath. You know that old saying, "You don't know what you have till its gone." It applies here too. But I guess it should be China, they only treat their own people like shit.

[bsjunior]

@jacobew2000 This is not about liberals vs patriots, or left wing vs right wing...... It's about human rights vs murder, truth vs lies, right vs wrong.....and at the moment you are squarely on the side of the lies, murder and criminality. It's so simple really. You don't see it that way because you have the mentality of a 5 year old boy who says "My dad's better than yours.."

Just 1 question to prove it. Why is the life of an American soldier more important than the life of a Afghan child?

[jacobew2000]

@bsjunior You are correct that this is about HUMAN RIGHTS. How about the human rights of those who died at ground zero!? Over 3000 Americans, and other nationalities, and religions, died as a result of the murderers who where hiding in Afganistan! Your question is a lie in itself! It is sad that any child dies, but that is the result of ANY WAR! Blame the Islamic extremists, who are demanding the destruction of the USA. You dont think that they wouldnt blow up a nuclear bomb in a USA city?

[bsjunior]

@jacobew2000 9/11 is the equivalent of the allied bombing of Nurenberg during WW2. Since you like to use the ww2 analogy you should realise that the U.S is in the place of the NAZI's not the "extremists". The extremists are just striking back at the U.S for decades of backing people like Saddam and the Fascist Israeli state. 9/11 was self defence buddy, sorry to tell ya. Don't believe me? try learning a little history.

[mostro135]

@jacobew2000

you will die a nationalist, ignorant and proud...good 4 u

don't reply

[jacobew2000]

@mostro135 I would say that I am much better informed than you.. i actually listened to my world around me. I try to come at it with an open mind, and I have even said when I thought Bush was wrong, but you guys on the left wont even try to consider the fact that Clinton screwed up in his 8 years of hypocracy, or that OBAMA has made major mistakes in the past 2 years in Afganistan with his micromanaging. Simple fact: Saddamn ignored 13 UN resolutions and inspectors over 12+ years!

[mankoinkaIII]

@jacobew2000 LOQUITO PORQUIEN VAS VOTAR?

[DRisLegend200919]

@jacobew2000 clinton's last term was bad

[kseaa]

He should've Just left others alone Iraq is like 8500 miles away so Saddam can't reach the u.s with his WMD "assuming that myth was actually true" so it wasn't any of his business..

[SnorkelNose]

I know Bush has become the new Hitler, but honestly, what was he supposed to say? That an armed Saddam was just fine, that the US wouldn't care? No one, not even the Clintons, Biden or Kerry ever said that.

[BI30]

Actually, Bush was more like Napoleon-I than Hitler. :)

But the problem with "taking out Saddam" is two fold: 1) Just how bloody unnecessary it was (no WMD's).

2) Considering how many FAR-WORSE threats there were to the US at the time (NK only had ONE nuke when Bush entered office, where-as they have 7-8 now), Iraq could have AT LEAST waiting until the war in Afghanistan was over and bin Laden had been caught.

You could even add a #3 with removing the only check we had on Iran in the region.

[i10azns]

@BI30 Thank you. The Hitler comparisons with every US president for the past 20 years was starting to get to me.

[jacobew2000]

@BI30 First of all, Saddam kept the inspectors out every chance he could. He was playing a game with IRAN, trying to maintain his influence in the middleeast, and to prevent the religious SHAW of Iran from influencing minorities in IRAQ to rebel. IRAQ did in fact use WMD against IRAN! Every time an UN inspector tried to look at a building, they delayed them and were seen removing stuff out the back doors. Never mind Iraq violated at least 13 UN resolutions up to 2003, including the ceasefire

[BI30]

@jacobew2000 youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykD­o

[SnorkelNose]

Bill Clinton made regime change the policy of the US government in 1998. If you're going to criticize one, you've got to criticize both, no?

[BI30]

No. Clinton's policy was regime change "from within" by encouraging Iraqi protests, not through the use of force based upon lies about Saddam's weapons capabilities.

[jacobew2000]

@BI30 Actually, they were holding the idea of invasion over the head of Saddam, as a "anything on the table" policy as leverage to get inspections. During this time period CLINTON had the Airforce bomb numerous radar sites and other installations to poke Saddam into not violating the UN resolutions for unrestricted airforce access. Sadly, Clinton was every bit of an idiot as OBAMA, and IRAQ should had been invaded in 1998/99!

[BI30]

@jacobew2000 The "threat of invasion" doesn't do much good if you don't share the threat with the person you're threatening. And please explain why Iraq EVER should of been "invaded". Saddam's crimes? If being a brutal dictator justifies invasion, we'd have to invade half the planet.

[jabari33162]

right on bush!

the you mr. president

[justin76bmw]

uh, saudi's atack us on 9-11, iran openly and agressivly develops nukes. lets atack iraq! WTF! the only wmd's they have are the ones we gave them.

[cashfire2003]

At least Bush kep this word. We did the right thing by invading Iraq. I will never change my opinion on that.

[BI30]

Explain to us again why we needed to invade Iraq?

[tylercjcl]

Bush made the right call on Iraq.

[TormentedStatue]

no they didnt :\ they had no right

[TroyOi]

This is silly tripe. For Bush to say that, if Saddam is still developing WMD (in violation of his agreements with the U.N.), "I'll deal with it in a way that he won't like", is exactly what every other presidential candidate would have been saying in Feb 2008, plus Pres. Clinton.

Why don't you explain to us, BI30, what you think Bush *should* have said in regard to that issue, if he wasn't, as you claim, intent on war.

And, btw, I am the LAST PERSON ON EARTH who wants to defend Bush!

[BI30]

Note a few things:

Listen to the video again. Jim Leher never mentions WMD's. Bush brings it up, not him. Leher even tries to get Bush back on subject of "dictators still in power" and Bush AGAIN brings up WMD's, and using their possible existence as an excuse to invade Iraq militarily. Bush ignores the subject of Milosevich and Bosnia entirely.

[TroyOi]

The 2 principal foreign policy issues in 2000 with regard to possible US military action were Milosovic's behavior with non-Serbs in Bosnia & Kosovo, & Saddam's with his defiance of UN WND inspections. Given the "tough guy" stance the Bush campaign used to win popularity, there's nothing surprising about his bias toward focusing on Iraq. The issue of Saddam was "sexier" than Bosnia or Kosovo, given that we'd fought & won a war against him 9 years prior.

[TroyOi]

That said, I will say that I think it's quite likely that Bush had a personal obsession about Iraq. Defeating Saddam was the golden opportunity for the prodigal son to finally prove that he was cleverer & bolder than his highly-accomplished father. In retrospect, it all seems very Shakespearean, except that 5000 REAL American lives were lost, and countless Iraqi ones.

Despite all that, what you present is very weak evidence for the conclusion that you make.

[BI30]

You must remember, before 9/11, no one was advocating the "invasion of Iraq" except the neocons. Bush stated AFTER 9/11 that invading Iraq was justified on the grounds "9/11 changed everything", but clearly he was already threatening the invasion of Iraq a mere 40 days after declaring his candidacy for President.

On it's own, this video may not reveal much, but remember how they savaged his former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill for claiming Bush "wanted to invade Iraq from Day One" (see vid.)

[TroyOi]

You don't have to convince me that Bush was itching for an excuse to invade Iraq. Yes, I remember Paul O'Neill's words; also that Bush (or was it Cheney?) demanded evidence of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 on virtually the day after.

But "I'll deal with it in a way that he won't like" is exactly the kind of vague threat our leaders always make when they want to sound tough, but don't want to commit themselves to anything concrete and drastic that can end up haunting them later.

[TroyOi]

I'll tell u one thing I do suspect, though: It seemed that the new Bush admin in 2001 was searching for some kind of foreign policy confrontation, perhaps to establish its neocon credentials, or to differentiate itself from the Clinton WH. Remember the incident with the Chinese plane smacking into our spy plane & then plunging into the ocean? It seemed we might be headed for a new era of frosty relations with the Chinese. And then 9/11 hit, & Bush/Cheney suddenly had better "fish to fry".

[Marcell2aG]

9/11 was planned by the U.S. govt so people would go along with the pre-made Iraq plan. It's fucked up, but true.

[BI30]

Sorry, but getting me to believe the most incompetent administration in history, led by a man that can't eat a pretzel without almost choking to death, pulled off the most elaborate conspiracy in history after only a few months in office.

[Marcell2aG]

Though I can see where you're coming from, it wasn't planned by Bush alone, who's too stupid to even tie his own shoe. That's where the guys from the very top come in.

[BI30]

One can argue that the Bush Administration "knew ahead of time and allowed it to happen anyway" so they could use it to rally support for their agenda, the case falls completely apart when you try to argue (as some do) "explosives" and "holographic airplanes".

I wrote a brief Op/Ed on the subject on my blog (see profile for link) two years ago this month. Search posts for "Debunking Conspiracy Myths" for more info.

[Marcell2aG]

The "explosives" argument makes more sense than the "holographic airplanes" argument. The planes were obviously real.

I'll check your blog out.

[2010GOP]

ABSOLUTE RETARDED ASS VIDEO

Take a look at the Democrats in 1998 regarding Saddam & WMDs

YouTube Search: "Democrats Before Iraq"

[BI30]

In 1998, PNAC was petitioning the Clinton Admin (CA) to overthrow Saddam over "WMDs". While they didn't invade, the CA cited WMD's to justify airstrikes against Iraq. When those airstrikes turned up nothing, WMDs were never mentioned again by the CA (sans Albright in '99). It was decided that Saddam had been disarmed.

Enter Bush in his '99 biography and this video in 2000, threatening the use of force against Saddam over nonexistent WMD's.

PS: Use "Post new" not Reply next time, Retardo.

[2010GOP]

B130:

The reply button's there in order to reply directly to the poster's comment - that would be you, Retardo

Prior to making a video on something you clearly have zero understanding of, perhaps you should research

Saddam's WMD program was suspected of being resurrected after the UNSCOM inspectors departed in 1998

One of many examples was converting L29s into UAVs fitted with aerial spray tanks for the dissemination of chemical or biological agents

Saddam = 16 violations/Res 1441

[mrose59]

wow are you an arrogant racist bitch

[BI30]

Unless you're responding to Marcell's thread, burying your comment below his makes no sense.

UNSCOM left when Clinton ordered the 98 missile attack on what turned out to be an aspirin factory. UNSCOM *never* claimed Saddam had resurrected his WMD program. Clinton did, which he retracted after the attack.

No UAVs were ever found. And I recommend you review those "16 violations", most of which were violations for failing to comply with prior violations... such as turning over WMD's he never had.

[2010GOP]

BI30:

I didn't put it under Marcell's thread --- are you new to YouTube? Most people are aware comments are not always immediately in order. Just a little fact for you prior to calling someone "retardo"

From the reports: "in late 1998 "the UN Special Commission reported, in essence, that it could not achieve its mandated disarmament and monitoring tasks with the limited access and cooperation that Iraq allowed"

EDUCATE YOURSELF -- you're WRONG

[BI30]

Two points. One, since your comment is indented below Marcell's, it means you used "Reply" instead of "Post". Arguing otherwise doesn't help your case.

Two, nothing you quoted supports your claim UNSCOM believes Saddam reconstituted his WMD program, only that they were being obstructed.

And please remember the video this thread is in response to. It shows Bush had a desire to invade Iraq over WMD's all along, and nothing you've said so far refutes that.

[2010GOP]

BI30:

1) Yes I hit reply next to your name, as I was "replying" to you

2) You are wrong. There was concern over WMDs from 1999 & beyond. Here you go --- educate yourself:

fpc . state . gov / documents / organization / 19208 . pdf

asanltr . com / newsletter / 00-3 / articles / 003a . htm

[BI30]

Wow, if you are going to cite a report to support your claim, you might actually want to read it first.

Not once does it state a belief that Saddam possed WMD's between 1999 & 2000.

[2010GOP]

BI30:

Hey "retardo" --- why isn't your comment under mine? LOL

[BI30]

Because YouTube lists replies in the order they were posted?

[bigtesticeicle]

Is it wrong to argue? is it wrong to question, your theory?

[BI30]

I have not proposed any "theory".

[bigtesticeicle]

then what have u proposed? because this video doesn't prove anything. So you are not providing me with evidence to anything. So i guess it's a "theory".

[BI30]

You suggested he "backed up his talk". But please remember what came first.

As you (and I) both noted, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11". But that's not what Bush said after 9/11. He said it was necessary to "preemptively" go after Saddam because "9/11 changed everything". But the video shows that Bush was already desirous of attacking Iraq and overthrowing Saddam LONG before 9/11. I refer you to my video of Paul O'Neill asserting Bush was already planning the invasion of Iraq from "day one".

[bigtesticeicle]

your upset that he backed up his talk? i dont understand what this video is showing.

[BI30]

Bush's defense for invading Iraq after 9/11 was that "9/11 changed everything. We can no longer wait until the threat is imminent before we act." Clearly, this video shows that he was already threatening the invasion of Iraq over "Weapons of Mass Destruction" long before "9/11 changed everything."

[bigtesticeicle]

9/11 has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. we invaded almost a year after 9/11. 9/11 didnt change jack shit. saddam hussein said hundreds of time that he had WMD's and wants to use them to annihilate america, off the face of the earth. Of course Bush would say that he would be willing to go to war with Iraq. only a dumbass wouldn't.

[BI30]

Dude, you're arguing my point, and the point of the video.

On the WMD's, 500 characters isn't enough space to prove how we KNEW Saddam didn't have those WMD's he claimed. I do have another video on the subject of Saddam explaining why he lied.

[bushputz]

"Evil person in charge"

"Causing these things to happen"

Only for a few more days, only for a few more days

[gingergiblet]

i take it you think o-baaaaaa-ma will be better? WRONG!

[OliverEnigmatic]

Lol Why did they have to invade iraq over oil theres also Iran,Kuwait,and Saudi arabia

[BI30]

Because those other countries didn't embarrass Bush's daddy.

[elrincondeldolor]

it might look like the same thing at first but The Nazis and Iraq are 2 completely different things, do some research: the ONLY reason why the US went to war with Iraq is: OIL ..this war will go down in history together as the election of George W Bush and the war in Vietnam as the biggest mistakes in american history ...it is being proved right now as a matter of fact

[doford]

Translation - bush 'iraq has oil... we want it, yah'

[BudThePatriot]

TO ASSURE MCCAIN A WIN ...bUSH WILL WAGE WAR AGAINST IRAN OR WE WILL BE HIT BY TERRORIST MAYBE BOTH..EITHER WAY YOU CAN BET THERE WILL BE WAR WITHIN A YEAR !! TODAY 4/16/08 RESEARCH YOU WILL FIND ..THOSE THREE ALONG WITH HIGH RANKING GENERALS HAVE MADE MANY VISITS TO THE MIDDLE EAST LATELY AND ISREAL HAS PREPARED THEIR PEOPLE AND COUNTRY FOR MAJOR WAR..JUST DO THE RESEARCH..

[ZenArrow]

Looking very close now.

It does not matter if there is a God, or if the prophecy scriptures are not true, it matters that those who are making the decisions are following the prophecies as if they were a TO DO list.

[DonkfestPokerDotCom]

Where is this recorded from? What is the date, time and Channel? Thanks in advance

[BI30]

Program: PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

Date: (shown in video).

Time: during "PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer".

Channel: PBS.

[MrEclectik]

text97 wrote:

"Please. If you hate Bush, just admit it. But don't sit there and claim he was on the warpath. For Christ's sake, his words were more measured in 2000 then they are today. He didn't say ANYTHING in that interview than what Clinton was saying at the time."

I think you missed the part where bushs regime CREATED THEIR OWN "INTELLIGENCE" agency likely because the CIA wasn't giving them the Saddam damning info bush n krew wanted. bush is blatantly readable like a pop up book.

[text97]

Oh, so when Bush was rocking away at 90% approval after 9/11, those of you who still hated him then were wrong?

My only point is that if Americans are disappointed in the perfomance of the Iraq war, that doesn't mean that 70% of the public now buys into 9/11 conspiracy theories or Iraq War conspiracy theories. But hey, if you wanna run in 2008 on that stuff, be my guest. Neither Obama nor Hillary will join you, though. They both know better.

[text97]

Please. If you hate Bush, just admit it.  But don't sit there and claim he was on the warpath. For Christ's sake, his words were more measured in 2000 then they are today. He didn't say ANYTHING in that interview than what Clinton was saying at the time.

[BI30]

I don't think I'm hiding the fact I despise the man. He will go down as the WORST president this nation has ever had to endure. But Bill Clinton NEVER suggested "invading" Iraq over "WMD's".

But that really isn't the point of the video. The point is to highlight the fact that *from day one*, Bush was already talking about "invading Iraq over Weapons of Mass Destruction". His 2002 SofU speech were he used 9/11 as a pretext, was a convenient excuse. It's what he intended all along.

[Timesobserver]

Actually, Bill Clinton did bomb Saddam for not going along with the U.N. weapons inspectors. Operation Desert Fox it was called. After the operation was over, Saddam refused to allow the U.N. back in and it was never determined how successful the operation was.

timesobserver DOT blogspot DOT com

[BI30]

youtube,com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykD­o

The myth that Saddam "kicked out the inspectors" remains popular, but the fact is Clinton pulled them out to bomb Iraq and, upon finding nothing, never sent them back in.

In 2002, Congress signed the infamous War Authorization bill to get them back in, but after just a few months, Bush pulled them out so he could invade.

[Timesobserver]

I never said that Saddam kicked the inspectors out. They were pulled out because Clinton wanted to bomb Iraq.

Now I wrote about this and I agree, Bush should have given the U.N. inspectors at least a year to conduct their search before military action was even considered.

timesobserver DOT blogspot DOT com

[ArmchairRevolution]

This is just a continuation from the Clinton debacle...

[Keyman444]

it is simple. who has benefitted the most from 9/11 and iraq? if you largely or only base your decisions on the media, then you will depend on wrong information and your memory is short term. watch money masters to discover the bankers who really rule the world, who caused this war like all the others, who we pay taxes to. if a person's income tax is 33 percent, he is a slave for a third of the year, now add inflation tax, and dozens of others to find a person's real percentage.

[UTBESUX]

Even I have attacked the 911 truthers but the more you look into it the more they make sense. MY GOD, I thought I'd never say it but my research is very clear. I have hundreds of questions that can't and won't be answered. After 911, corporations made BILLIONS, our economy was drained, gas prices highest ever. THE REAL TERRORISTS is George W. Bush, he is THE ENEMY WITHIN. Think about everything that has changed since he STOLE the election. Think about the scandals, lies and the so-called media!

[BI30]

The problem with the 9/11 Truth" crowd is that there are two distinct factions: those that believe the Bush Administration "actively participated" in the attack, planting explosives and robot-controlled airplanes; and the "they knew but didn't stop it" crowd. I can defend the latter, but supporters of the first are loons.

[rugger8541]

oh cry me a river of tears. look at any of the 16 intelligence agencies testimony up to and after the invasion and they all say the same thing. IRAQ is a threat to mid east stability and they do have a chem bio weapons program. God forbid we have a president that listens to our intelligence agencies.

[BI30]

Okay, let's go through this. President Bush himself justified invading Iraq after 9/11 on the grounds "9/11 changed everything", yet it is clear here (by your own admission) that he *already* harbored a desire to invade Iraq at a time when all others supported "containment".

So tell us, do you want to argue Bush was a "visionary" that foresaw a (non-existent) threat from Iraq yet failed to foresee 9/11 despite warnings, or do you wish to argue Bush *lied* when he said "9/11 changed everything"?

[rugger8541]

Bush changed his personal foreign policy on 9/11 from defense to attack. we now eliminate problems before they kill our people.....before. the Department of Defense, Central Command and all of our intel agencies wanted Iraq gone since the gulf war and have never changed that position. clinton just refused to do it during operation desert fox because the DOD was ruined under his lackluster leadership.

[BI30]

So you've chosen Door #1. Wise choice.

"Bush changed his foreign policy after 9/11"

Quite clearly from this video, that's notthe case. And you might want to Wiki the "Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998" (HR4685)

BTW: I just gotta ask: "Wanted *Iraq* gone"??? Where was it supposed to go, Denmark?

[UTBESUX]

Of course it isn't the case B130, he is a right-winger and if the sky is blue and they are told it is green then dammit it is green! They are actually a cult if you read up on them. They follow the leader, get their views on reality from leaders. Look up James R Lewis and read his cult studies. It is a cult when they no longer see reality! He saw this clip and said Bush changed ON 911, that my friend is a detachment from reality!

[UTBESUX]

rugger8541, I'd tell you to get a clue but you are clueless!

[ZenArrow]

Weapons of Mass Distraction

Weapons of Mass Deception

Fear is a motivator which throw out all true reason, and perverts the course by closing the mind to other possibilities.

Fear activates fight or flight.

Throw in a Military Budget which makes profits for the Admin and friends, and flight is not an option.

Peace by kindness, not war.

[Xeonise]

What's the problem? Saddam was a threat, and he was removed. Why do people keep whining. Blame Saddam for not complying, not Bush for dealing with it.

[BI30]

Remind us again how "Saddam was a threat"?

[Yankhadenough]

BI30 He had "our oil" under his sand?

[coffeewithchess]

Thanks for posting this!

[timorekusa]

Thank you for posting.

Will blog it.

[expatman2004]

On January 25th 2001 he was given a plan of attack by Clinton that called for URGENT action against AQ.

If Gore had been in the WH in 2001, it is clear 9/11 would have been prevented.

Read the Gore Commission Reports.

Read the Jan 25th memo from Clarke begging for action against AQ.

Read the August PDB Bush received warning that AQ was making preparations for HIJACKINGS.

Anyone that conintues to support the GOP is a TRAITOR.

[masudrules]

he was much more articulate in this interview than he is now...I think when he became president he just started suffering from pre-senile dementia, there is no other explanation

[BI30]

Alcohol.

[masudrules]

yeah that's possible, but why would he start drinking just when he became president?

[BI30]

Evidence of his "word salad" style of "truthiness" seems to begin sometime after it became apparent we were not going to find any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

[masudrules]

yup...sure seems like it

[acetentura]

......and America RE-ELECTED this murdering moron!!

[scj16]

YOu should also read or see the Last Presidential Debate in 2000. Bush would try to play the WMD saddam card even then. It was all planned by the neo-cons and the project of the new american century years before bush was elected.

[Snoryrag]

yeah! go bush!

[beatryxa]

Bush, the infamous Village Idiot, he spread all USA Citizens whit his big ass dropping cocaine shit, i hope the DEVIL FUCK HIS ASS AND MAKE IT LIKE A COLIFLOWER IN EXPLOSION.

[VendettaVV]

"the world changed after 911" my ass.

There weren't any links between 911 and Iraq. How come out of all the perpetrators that contributed to 911 attacks, NONE of them were from Iraq. So why is that they are blaming terrorists in IRAQ?

[Painofheart]

yeah its so. and what about that mass destruction weapon thingy? those CIA proves were FAKES! yes the USA found out that the whole mass weapon thingis were fake!

so

[ertantheballer3]

bush knocked the twin towers he knows where binladin is i bet

[chishty786]

excellent work!

[rafiq786uk]

I can't beleive that he didn't even flinch while lying! He sounds like an extremely arrogant b@5t@rD. He wouldn't be talking like that if he was slapped around the face a few times.

[Vet223]

If you want to nickel and dime me over "bomb vs invade" that's fine, my goal isn't to see the video come down but show that it's mediocre. As the Clinton administration proved over and over again (just google operation desert anything), you can bomb and threaten all you want and inevitably Saddam would start it up again. It was just logical that somebody finally followed through on Clinton's plans for regime change.

[BI30]

Not to be confrontational, but the difference between "bomb" and "invade" is 3600 dead U.S. troops. As for Saddam starting anything back up, that could of been prevented with 20,000 *International* inspectors crawling up his ass for the next twenty years, vs. the terrorist training ground we have now. Bush cherry-picked the intel that made invading "the only option" because the alternative "might be a mushroom cloud". As the video points out, "invasion" was always his intention.

[Vet223]

... [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word."

That's from Madeleine Albright, regarding Operation Desert Fox, a Clinton administration bomb-and-missile campaign against Iraqi WMD production. As you can see she admitted not actually getting it all, so logic would dictate that 14 months later Saddam would have "some" or more.

[BI30]

Lucky for you I already knew about Albright's assertion about Saddam's WMD's. She was the ONLY post "aspirin factory bombing" member of the Clinton Cabinet to make such an assertion.

Only problem with the quote... STILL no recommendation to invade Iraq over it. "A" for effort, but still no cookie.

[Vet223]

Already knew? Obviously not.

Bill Clinton and the whole lot said the reason for Op: Desert Fox was WMD production. Albright's just the one who explained there would still be some left when the bombing was over. She also said this while we were already attacking Iraq, as an explanation... obviously she wouldn't recommend anything more when her team's plans are already in action.

[BI30]

You're saying I *didn't* know Albright suggested Saddam had a WMD program after DFox? Well, I suppose there is no way to "prove" it, though if I told you she was the ONLY Clinton cabinet member to make such an assertion, and you looked it up, it might prove it... but nah... Republicans don't look anything up. They just make baseless claims and hope no one knows better.

Yes, WMD was the reason for DFox, but notice no one INVADED, and after DF, only Albright made the claim until Bush took office.

[Vet223]

Okay, this is 1 year and 2 months before your video. "I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century...

[Fozyvideos]

he used to be able to talk like that?

has he develped a disease recently?

also.

this video seems to act. give positive evidence towards bush..... doesnt it? (besyds wt u wrote obv)

[Buried3030]

blah blah blah and so was every other politician in American during this time.....your video means nothing.

[BI30]

If you can provide a link to even ONE other (non-Neocon) politico advocating war with Iraq "during this time", I will pull the video.

[Vet223]

glennbeck dot

com/news/01302004 dot shtml

"Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock... his nuclear program... He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ..." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[BI30]

Maybe you missed the date? (Democrats calling for the invasion of Iraq "after" 9/11 and trusting that their Commander in Chief was telling them the truth does not count.)

Before 9/11, NO ONE was advocating for the invasion of Iraq except Bush and his Neocon cadre. Nice try, but no lollypop.

[Vet223]

Yeah, because we all know it's George W. Bush who is not only president but also every agent and analyst of the CIA at once. The same people that told Bush told the Dems, but yet it's "Bush lied" with our history-blind media.

I take it you already saw Gore's 1992 rant?

[BI30]

Not the place for a debate on the issue, but all intel that did not support what the Bush Administration wanted to believe was ignored, and intel that confirmed what they already believed to be true... no matter how unreliable... was asserted as fact.

[profnc]

Wow... He shown a pretty tough leader back then. He still is btw...

Notice that he used to talk more... faster back then

[DJFla]

In my previous comment, I forgot to include the link for Algoron's video comments saying the same thing back in 1992: Punch this into the search window: 9JE48XHKG64

[DJFla]

Keep in mind that Bubba and Algore were saying the same thing, only .. OH .. about 8 years earlier. So what's your point? That Bush believed the same thing about Iraq and Saddam that Bubba, the Almighty-of-the-Left did? How does this impune Bush if most everyone else believed the same thing?

[cupera1]

If you stand still long enough the libs/progressives will flip to the opposite side of anything

[BI30]

Not quite sure what that means.

[cupera1]

global warming to global cooling

Saddam had WMD's to he didn't

Hitler is good to Hitler is bad

conumism is good to communism is bad

[bcd1026]

Search "Gore Criticizes Bush" on the Youtube search feature.

[Guitarman5150]

I just watched this before I saw what you wrote. Very interesting. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. He said something about the USS Stark while I remember under his watch something about the USS Cole in 2000 Oct. That was right after my inactive reserve inlistment was up for the US Navy.

[dumpypotatoes]

The context set by the title of that video is very misleading. If you listen to it, Gore is criticizing Bush Sr for doing business with Saddam. In no way shape or form does it mean Iraq had anything to do with 911, or had WMDs at that time. They didnt on both counts.

[cupera1]

Saddam had just as much resposiblity for 911 that the Teleban had. We have found ~500 WMD's in Iraq so far.

[jimbobeire]

Old empty shells left over from the Iran Iraq war, don't really count as WMD amigo.

[mwatzl]

I call it visionary.

TeamCannabis? ...one bong to many!

[TubeViewer64]

Yeah? Your point?

[TeamCannabis]

This is very telling of the Bush meglomanic mindset pre 9/11.Hussein is long gone now,there were no WMD's or any other threats for that matter. The americans voted for a policy change,and he's expanding operations and sending more troops.IMPEACH!

[kalima275Z]

Your name is fitting the stereotype of many of the sheep that have been led away from reality and logical thinking by mainstream liberals and the money hungry biased media.

Score one for Marijuana and the residual effects on your thinking process. :)

[BI30]

You're not standing on such firm ground yourself Kali'ma... "Goddess destroyer of negativity".

[kalima275Z]

Kalima is Hawaiian not Hindu, Indian or whatever you're assuming. In other words, I'm standing on firm ground.

[Edgeoforever]

Sooo...9.11 didn't change everything?????