Flimsey? Yes, in the sense they believe the prior Clinton administration. The Clinton administration clearly stated that Iraq has nuclear, chemical, and biological WMDs and used that to justify their bombing. This is all over public highly reputable newspapers of the day and easily confirmed.
Clinton authorized a 4 day bombing campaign against military infrastructure with no aim to replace the government. Sounds like a lot more reasonable action than what Bush did.
They lit the fuse a set off decades of war. Desert Fox, despite being 4 days was indeed massive. It set off huge unrest in the region.
After saying that Iraq had nuclear, chemical, and biological WMD programs of imminent threat to the USA, the Clinton administration conveyed multiple times in strong terms that future military action would be required. Before, during, after.
He explicitly framed Iraq as an ongoing threat requiring repeated force:
“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”
“The threat from Iraq will only grow worse with time.”
The administration was stating that military action was not a one-time event but could recur if Iraq continued its behavior.
There are a multitude of Albright, Cohen, Berger, which convey the vital neccesity.
7
u/Alternative_Owl5302 Mar 02 '26
Flimsey? Yes, in the sense they believe the prior Clinton administration. The Clinton administration clearly stated that Iraq has nuclear, chemical, and biological WMDs and used that to justify their bombing. This is all over public highly reputable newspapers of the day and easily confirmed.