White House deflects intel questions (Scotty invokes Clinton excuse)

that's all that needs to be said.

To them I guess getting a BJ is worse than taking the country to war based on lies. I hate them all :grr:

"Oh, if only lies left seaman stains"

LOL!!! :rofl:

...of Iraq and then pump his fist ("Feels good!") while sending thousands of U.S. soldiers to die. I wish someone would simply say that.

Clinton did kick inspectors out. When he illegally bombed in '98 (which I protested) Clinton asked the insepctors to leave. If the inspectors had stayed, then we might have had a better picture of Saddam's capabilities.

Then again, everyone was playing a stupid game with Saddam. Even the UN knew by '96 that Saddam was effectively disarmed. They didn't say so to try to squeeze more and more inspections out of him.

I don't know why I forgot about that. I also forgot about the very first time Clinton bombed Iraq right after he was elected. It was supposedly in retaliation for the nebulous "plot" to assassinate Bush Sr., a plot (if there was one) that I don't think most people knew anything about until we started bombing. You might have put the nail in the coffin of my "I miss Clinton" days.

is that if the Dems did deem Saddam a threat, they didn't think it was so grave a threat that we needed to go to war. What was it that made it imperative that we go to war once Bush got in office?

See, Clinton wanted to go to war, but he knew that if he held off and let the Bush administration (because of course Clinton knew that Bush would be the next president) invade Iraq, that they would really screw it up and it would make them look incompetent. And then, the country would be so disgusted with Bush and the Republicans that Hillary would have a clear shot at the White House. Boy, did they walk right into that one!

FEAR THE MIGHTY, OMNISCIENT CLENIS!

2002? And of course, the UN inspectors who were admitted to Iraq didn't notice anything had changed since 1991? What total Bull!

I mean, why trust the conclusion of an administration that did nothing but make mistakes? :sarcasm:

"Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out!"

Yeah, like nothing changes in two years. I'm sick to death of pukes falling to Clinton thought so too. Had the same intel.... IMHO what's up with this??? Is it only me or does this piss anyone else off??

we are questioning what this administration did with the intelligence.

It carries no weight whatsoever.

BushCo has blamed everything on Clinton, and it now sounds so lame. I laugh in their corrupted faces...

...what Clinton thinks or thought? If anything, you'd think they'd welcome the chance to prove Clinton WRONG about something:

"Well, Clinton said Saddam was a threat but Clinton lies...blah, blah, blah..."

You would think that this is what we'd be hearing instead.

But as you pointed out "since when do they care about what Clinton thinks or thought?"

Clinton Says He Warned Bush of bin Laden Threat
Reuters

Thursday 16 October 2003

NEW YORK - Former President Bill Clinton warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced, Clinton said on Wednesday.

Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.

"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defense," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."

The U.S. government has blamed bin Laden's Al Qaeda network for the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101703A.shtml

Perhaps the next time Scotty, or anyone else for that matter, tries to pull this crap of "Clinton also said Saddam was a threat," ask that person "Clinton also warned Bush about Bin Laden and we saw what happened with that!"

of authority would say such a thing. Freepers, yes, but the WH spokesperson?!
:rofl:

nt.

Let's assume that Clinton believed Iraq had WMDs, but did not start a war based on that belief. Let's take this assumption a bit further. In all things, Clinton listened to opposing ideas. We can assume, therefore, that, even if he believed Iraq had WMDs, he would have paid attention to evidence suggesting that Hussein did not have them.

We now know that Hussein was bluffing about having WMDs. Let's change the assumption and assume that Clinton believed that Hussein had WMDs but knew there was a chance that Hussein was bluffing. What would have been the wisest course -- to out Hussein and let the Shiites and the Iranians know that the weapons were a bluff -- as Bush has done? Or, play along, knowing that the WMD claim was a doubtful but useful ruse to keep the Iranians at bay? Certainly the latter.

The results of Bush's having unmasked Hussein's bluff is the proof. After the horrible number of needless deaths, the worst thing about Bush's Iraq strategy is not that he lied, but that the Shiites and their Iranian allies now have virtual control over a large part of Iraq. The Iraqi Constitution takes Iraq back to a religious state and puts the mullahs in charge. Not only did Bush lie, but he totally goofed by calling Hussein's bluff. The threat of the WMDs were keeping the Iranians and the religious zealots at bay. Had Bush been patient and assisted the development of a secular democratic movement in Iraq to overthrow Hussein from within, the democratization of Iraq would have been delayed, but it would have taken a form more favorable to U.S. interests.

The repercussions for the entire Middle East of Bush's failed strategy are not yet known, but contrary to Bush's claims about establishing democracy, things are likely to get worse before they get better. Just last week, the Iranian leaders were talking about the destruction of Israel. And those same Iranian leaders have a great deal of influence in Iraq now which they did not have under Clinton. So, Clinton may or may not have been wrong about the WMDS, but he was right to allow Hussein's claim to stand. I feel safe assuming that Clinton knew that the existence of the WMDs was not certain but that he saw the wiser course as publicly stating he believed the bluff while privately doing everything to make sure Hussein did not acquire or produce WMDs he didn't have. Bush loses big time when you compare what he did to what Clinton did. Whether Clinton may have actually believed that Saddam had WMDs or not, Clinton handled the situation correctly. The fool Bush rushed in and got us into a huge mess we don't need to be in.

you have a dog"- Hans Blix.

Exactly JD. Even before the "War on Terror" began (for W&Co., it had been going on for quite some time for everyone else) the smart thing to do was to keep one foot on Saddam so you know that he is under control. I could go on but you pretty much covered it.

now why don't you go over there and polish your forehead.

Everybody knows if it hadn't been for them, we would never have gone to war. Are ya happy now Scotty, you moron.

Left of Cool

(snip)
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
30 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The White House sought to deflect politically charged questions Wednesday about President Bush's use of prewar intelligence in Iraq, saying Democrats, too, had concluded Saddam Hussein was a threat.

ADVERTISEMENT



"If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they've made," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_on_go_pr_wh/senate_iraq

Is how this should read.

But not me. I see right through their Republican Culture of Corruption crap.

This has been going on for three freakin' years!

...but isn't it great to see the naked truth exposed in the press?

...ressurect the ghost of Bubba's admin.

the bridge, would you jump off, too? Let's just suppose that this is true, that those war-mongering democrats who weren't in power were trying to trump up this war. So what? In what way does that excuse the grown-up party in Washington?

But this is one of the reasons that the investigation into the intell for war is so important. The cabal lied to the congress, too. Under a Gore administration, I'm pretty sure that would be an impeachable offense, but, alas, everything has changed.

...we'll see this a matter of justice delayed, but not denied.

Someone needs to remind POS scotty who's supposedly running the country right now.

--"If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they've made," White House press secretary Asshole McClellan said.--

He sent me a zipped archive of all the old NewsMax articles claiming WMD were found in Iraq. I just deleted it because I've been through this several times with him, but he never answers "If we found WMD in Iraq, why doesn't someone in the White House, or one of the many Republicans who support the war stand up and say 'Here's Proof!'?"

and move back from there. We promise to investigate OUR White Hous'e's views as soon as YOUR WHis thoroughly investigated.

had the same intelligence...
From Americablog;
Snip
Q Isn’t your statement in error when you say that the previous administration came to the same conclusion? The previous administration did not come to the same conclusion –

MR. McCLELLAN: I said the same conclusion, that Saddam Hussein –

Q — to intervene militarily.

MR. McCLELLAN: — that Saddam Hussein’s regime was a threat.

Q But they didn’t go to war.

Q But isn’t the point of the –

MR. McCLELLAN: You want to talk about their comments? Let’s talk about their comments.

Q But the point of what they raised yesterday is the President’s decision to move militarily into Iraq. Are you saying –

MR. McCLELLAN: There’s no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. His regime “threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us” — President Clinton, remarks to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, February 17, 1998.

Q But he didn’t take us to war.

Q But isn’t the specific issue –

MR. McCLELLAN: The conclusion they came to was that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a threat and a destabilizing force in a dangerous part of the world.

Q But he didn’t take us to war.

Q But the specific issue is weapons of mass destruction.

Q But the question was whether the United States –

MR. McCLELLAN: You asked me about a statement I made, and I just backed up the statement that I made.

Q But the specific issue is weapons of mass destruction, and that is — that is the intelligence having to do with that. And the Democrats are saying that is what they’ve been deprived of, an investigation of. And so my question is, given what happened in the Senate –
snip
Simple...
Regardless of Whomever had the same intelligence,
One person and One person only made the decision to go to war based on it..
That person is Bush..
EVERY Democrat should be pounding this fact home to shut these people up once and for all.

That was foolish, but not criminal. Bush's lies were criminal. So was his invasion, a war crime.

Enough already, Scotty-mouth!

Clinton in fact did engage us in a war, a war which we *cough* won (I hate that word in terms of war). The war in Kosovo did not cause one single loss of life of U.S. military, and furthermore, Clinton's decision to go to war actually ended up with Milosovec in the Hague. Not in his home country, but in the Hague, which is where crimes against humanity deserve to be tried.

Now, Scotty, please compare the Clinton administration's handling of a war, which incidentally did include an exit strategy, with the handling of the War on Iraq.

The dem pundits have blown this trap every time the repubs use it. The repubs continue to say "But you dems thought the same thing!" And each time, the dems are unprepared. It is depressing to see how unprepared they are for this obvious talking point.

What the dems ought to say is that they never, ever, thought Saddam had a nuclear progam. The Bush administration lied and lied very specifically and flagarantly about this aspect of the WMDs. The dems should say "We want to know why Colin Powell went before the UN and said that there was only one use for the aluminum tubes in Iraq when the US's own state dept. knew better. This is a deliberate lie that exaggerated a threat and launched an uneeded war. Why did Powell say this..."

And so fourth.

Using Clinton's quote is very dishonest, by the way. Yes, Clinton said Saddam was dangerous to America, but Jesus, that was just rhetoric. All the experts, as well as 95 percent of the world's population, knew Saddam was a paper tiger. Anyone who had any critical thinking skills and was being honest knew this. The trick is, how to point out that what Clinton said was mere rhetoric. John Stewart did a pretty good job when neocon Christopher Hitchens brought this point, saying that 98 senators voted to remove Saddam in 1998 (or something like that). Stewart answered that this resoltion was symbolic--which it was.

were voting on FAULTY INTELLIGENCE provided by this administration. That is why the President is the Comander-in-Chief - it is his ball and his game, and Congress act based on the information that they have.

Faulty information = bad decision. I just heard Hannity saying this and I wish someone would call and tell him to SHUT UP!!!