Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OK, this business about * relying on the same intelligence that Clinton

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:45 PM
Original message
OK, this business about * relying on the same intelligence that Clinton
had available to him. How do we know this is true? Has there been any attempt to prove or disprove this R talking point as presented by Cornyn now in the Senate. Personally, I doubt if it was the exact intelligence since some time had passed between the end of Clinton's term in office and the time * set about actively selling his snake oil. How can we disprove this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. I start by saying
that if Clinton had the same intelligence, he obviously didn't trust it well enough to send us into a preemptive war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Awww, ya beat me to it!!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Bingo!
The sanctions were working. The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 would have been a far superior means to oust Hussein; less costly overall in lives and money.

Yep, Clinton was brilliant when it came to Iraq and the intelligence at his disposal, not to mention regard to human life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. it's clearly untrue
otherwise Rice and Powell wouldn't have been saying in '01 that Saddam was NOT a threat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. U R Absolutely right...there's those great clips of..
Condi and Colin in 2001, both saying that Iraq was not a threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Even if he did, it was not credible enough to go to war AND
the shrub machine had the chance to allow the inspectors to finish their job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. WE don't have to They have to prove it is true Just say "REALLY Prove it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. Well, it was up to the weapons inspectors to discover what was actually
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 03:18 PM by blm
there, so it doesn't matter what the intel said when Clinton was reading it or when Bush was fixing it.

Clinton wouldn't have invaded Iraq while the weapons inspections were proving invasion was unnecessary. No Dem president, senator, or congressman would.

Bush did. He violated the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. There you have it. Many people forget (or ignore) that the
inspectors were on track for proving Bush wrong if they had been allowed to finish their inspection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. They are so easily distracted to blame the IWR that they let Bush off the
hook for violating the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. This needs to be hammered home. We need some
party leaders to incorporate this into their media presentations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. It surprises me that this point is never brought up by the media
or by Democrats, for that matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. The media I expect it from, but the Dems better get up to speed
and fill in these important gaps in the talking points the Rs put out. I expect better than that from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Because the media spun it so well from the beginning for Rove.
Blaming the IWR meant Democrats will waste most of their time blaming other Democrats because the media baited them into it by calling it a vote for war.

Guidelines were never discussed on air so Bush could never be held accountable for violating those guidelines. Pure Rove spin, and the media helped them every step of the way. Dems got snookered in that debate. Well, some of them talked about it but they got ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. That's the point of the statement, it is not disprovable. They want to
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 02:50 PM by jsamuel
distract us from the fact that they were lieing us into a war with Iraq. Forget about that! Just think of Clinton!

Then tell them this, "Clinton decided that we shouldn't invade Iraq and Bush did while accomplishing a long campaign to get Americans to support that invasion."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johncoby2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
9. Clintons back up plan was to attack Iraq......
with 500,000 troops!

But he deemed the intelligence to not warrant an invasion. Instead he contained Saddam, and made sure he didnt have any access to WMDs.

And what do you know? He didnt have any!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
10. It's not true. At one point, Clinton did have intelligence that Saddam had
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 02:58 PM by johnaries
a warehouse full of WMD's, so Clinton bombed it. End of WMD's. Of course, the Repukes criticized him for it.
edit to add links:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/17/impeachment/transcript.html
http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/19981219-FitsBill.html
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/12/cov_18newsa.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. Who Cares??? Clinton DID NOT INVADE Iraq. Point is Moot.
Perhaps Clinton realized that SCREWBALL was a screwball.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. It's a flawed argument on many levels
Involving the political environment, intelligence assets, all sorts of things, but you can't boil it down simply enough to explain to Sean Hannity or your average freeper, both of whom possess room temperature IQs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. "EXACTLY, and Clinton didn't invade because it was not credible."
try that one :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
14. Clinton didn't have access to the August 6th, 2001 briefing
that told the President of the United States that bin laden to strike inside the USA. And Clinton didn't commit our troops to war in Iraq. Dumb fucking neanderthal talking point swallowed by the lemmings as they wallow on their knees begging for more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. here is a good article--posted earlier also



http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/07/bush-clinton-iraq
Why Bush’s Case On Iraq Was Different From Clinton’s

The Bush administration’s talking point these days in defending its use of false pre-war intelligence is to blame Clinton. Scott McClellan said last week that critics “might want to start with looking at the previous administration.” Sen. George Allen (R-VA) repeated the mantra on CNN this Sunday: “ecognize that even the Clinton administration thought Saddam posed a threat.” And Bill Kristol writes in the Weekly Standard that the White House should “fight back” by pointing out that Clinton administration officials “believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.”

To justify the war against Iraq, the Bush administration made a number of exaggerated and misleading claims about the Iraqi threat that went far beyond the public statements issued by the Clinton administration. Going beyond the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration made a unique case on two specific fronts to justify the war: the supposed connections to al Qaeda and the Iraqi nuclear threat.

The administration argued that the evidence in these two areas amounted to a “grave and gathering threat” in a “post-September 11th world.” On the eve of the Iraq war, Bush said:

The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The imagery was clear: terrorists, such as those that attacked on 9/11, could do far greater damage with nuclear weapons, and the Iraqi regime was helping to make that scenario a reality. In fact, the evidence behind the supposed Iraq/al Qaeda connection and the evidence on the nuclear threat have turned out to be the weakest links in the case for war. See the evidence below:

LIES ABOUT IRAQ/AL QAEDA LINKS

What Bush Said: “Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” <10/7/02>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Of course Clinton thought Saddam was a threat
and what did he do about it? In a cooperative effort with Britian, France, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Operations Southern and Northern Watch were established over Iraq in the 90's, keeping hussien's airforce on the ground and giving cover to weapon's inspectors. The No-Fly Zone was a total success with minimal loss of life (19 Airmen killed by terrorists at Dahran Air Base in 96.) The operation crippled hussein. He was a helluva lot less of a threat when Clinton left office then when his eight years started. That's what ya call leadership bush. And he got a blowjob to boot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Not one Dem ever takes this talking point on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
16. And they decided CONTAINMENT was a better 'solution' than war. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
19. It may very well be the same intelligence. However, if Bush had
not kicked the U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, he would have had "new and improved" intelligence. Who goes to war based on three year old intelligence?

My theory is that Bush knew there were no WMD's which is why he had to attack before the inspectors confirmed the fact that Saddam had already disarmed. That would have shown that the U.N. sanctions had worked. He wouldn't have had any support for his plan to show Poppy that he was the better President in the family. Bush really wanted this war and was determined to have it, regardless the cost to our soldiers, the Iraqis and the standing of America in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. I agree accept
you state that bush "wouldn't have had any support." The ignorant, rabid, racist, insane members who make up the majority of his base would not have cared if he lied. They saw an opportunity to send others sons and daughters off to a war to kill ragheads. Its just that it would have been one hell of a sell to the wackjobs liberals who care about the truth and our country and who genuinely support our troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. You're right. There are some who would have supported an
invasion of any country for any reason, if Bush said it was necessary. No need for facts, just support the president. Sad, but true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
28. Did Clinton leave Bush with any troops in Iraq?
I don't think so!

Does anyone but the president get the PDB's ? I don't think so !

Did you bring out the fact that Iraq already had 500 tons of sealed yellow cake with the seals put on by the IAEA and monitored by them--and they were never touched. I don't think so !

And yet Iraq would need to buy more yellow cake.

Did your father who unfortuntely bore your egg attack Saddam when he was right there in the country with only the Republican Guard left to annihilate ? I don't think so !

Did France, Germany and all but about 4 countries get it right?

I think so !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC