Skip to main content

View Diary: Hillary Clinton's Dishonest Ploy to Wash The Blood Of War From Her Hands (724 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nothing magic about it (14+ / 0-)

    All she had to ask was, "Hey, Bill, are there any WMD in Iraq?  You know the kind that could nuke the good old US of A or are they talking about the palace cook's pressure-cooker?"  

    •  There was a lot more concern about biological (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DiesIrae, Tempus Figits

      and chemical WMDs than nuclear. He did have a track record of using chemical weapons.

      •  The one and only reason that would justify (22+ / 0-)

        an invasion of Iraq is if there was evidence that he was actively planning an attack on the United States.  Kennedy didn't even go to war when the Russian put nuclear missiles in Cuba (though a blockade was a step that could be seen as an act of war).   Even if he'd had chemical weapons, he couldn't launch them at New York.  Even if he had nukes he was not threatening to use them on the United States. There were no weapons and there was no threat to use weapons.  There was NOTHING.  There was no justification whatever for invading a sovereign state with shock and awe bombing of innocent civilians and the subsequent carnage continuing to this day.  

        Americans have still not wrapped their heads around how truly awful it was to launch a massive invasion of a country for NOTHING.  

        This was not a casual error.  This was breaking the international rules of nations states big time.

        •  You may have misunderstood my comment. It (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          was a direct response to your suggestion that she ask Bill about nuclear WMDs.

          Surely, you don't think I was attempting to justify the Iraq war, do you?

          Possession of WMDs of any kind have never been a reason to make war. I didn't think that needed to be said.

        •  Wait till Americans grok that it wasn't about (7+ / 0-)


          Americans have still not wrapped their heads around how truly awful it was to launch a massive invasion of a country for NOTHING.
          It actually was 'mission accomplished' because the intention all along was to break up the artificially-constructed nation called Iraq into its constituent thirds. As the current news reveals, that goal is well on its way to fruition.

                Mission Accomplished
          Two oil-bearing regions, both willing to sell directly to the West (Kurdestan already doing so) without a central dictator who threatens to set up his own oil exchange currency.
          One oil-less, angry, hungry region to keep the oil bearers needing Western arms.

          Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

          by davidincleveland on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 03:19:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Chemical and biological weapons are not (8+ / 0-)

        a danger to the structural integrity -- the existence -- of the United States of America.

        There are dozens of countries around the world with ugly awful weapons. Are we going to invade them all, "just in case...."?

        The reason he had a track record of using chemical weapons - mustard gas against Iran and sarin against the Kurds - is because the USA sold him some of it and encouraged him. He had the full support of the presidency of the USA at one point and that's when he was gassing. Did he ever gas anyone after?

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 02:38:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And if he had said "yes he does" have WMD (7+ / 0-)

      Then that would not change the answer that Irak was not a military threat to the U.S.  

      Even if Hussein had WMD, that would not justify war against Irak. The militarists chose to make "does he have WMDs?" the operative question regarding whether to commit war. That Sen. Clinton ignored this thin smokescreen and, today, still does not acknowledge the politics that led to our war, is absolutely frightening.

      Possession of WMD (as many other counties and the U.S. already do) would never justify going to war. This is particularly true relative to a secular dictator, such as Saddam Hussein, whose primary goal was to not piss of the U.S., not allow Al Quada into his country, and maintain his grip on power.

      -- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

      by Caoimhin Laochdha on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 03:13:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site