What document "proves" that Clinton "had the same intel" about Iraq?

jsamuel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 02:58 PM
Original message

What document "proves" that Clinton "had the same intel" about Iraq?

I would like to see exactly what the heck the RWer's keep referring to. Many times they take a statement meaning a very small thing and make it into a super-mondo statemtent, especially when it comes to Clinton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SoCalDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 02:58 PM
Response to Original message

1. Rush & Sean SAID so..

What more do you need:):sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

junkiebrewster

(371 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 02:59 PM
Response to Original message

2. I'm still waiting for proof

that Clinton invaded Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rodeodance

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:00 PM
Response to Original message

3. "Why Bush�s Case On Iraq Was Different From Clinton�s"--good article

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.

T

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rodeodance

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. nominate

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jsamuel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. So they just made it up then...

not surprised.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rodeodance

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. see post 3--

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

blm

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:01 PM
Response to Original message

6. I think it was extrapolated from Clinton's comments around that time where

he was in agreement that based on the intel we had then, that getting weapons inspectors in was needed to see if the capabilities were what was being reported.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jsamuel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #6

9. So Clinton said he wanted weapons inspectors back in and the RWer's

Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 03:05 PM by jsamuel

think that means that Clinton decided to invade Iraq because they might have WMD's?

Where was that invasion?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

blm

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #9

13. What can I say - the freepers will use anything.

I just hope our side doesn't help them by blaming Clinton or the IWR for war when it was Bush's violation of the IWR guideline for weapons inspections that deserve ALL the blame.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

second edition

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message

8. Clinton's intell would have been old by the time it was reviewed

by Bush and Co.Would you use old intell? I think I remember reading something about the itell. going back to 1998.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Skidmore

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wiggs

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message

11. O'Neill's book...

This has probably been posted a dozen times by various people on DU....

...but Paul O'Neill said in his book that HE SAW THE REAL CIA INTELLIGENCE AND IT ALWAYS HAD QUALIFICATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS ABOUT THE UNCERTAINTIES. However, congress and public were not shown the disclaimers and qualifiers.

So Clinton would have seen the disclaimers also.

O'Neill should be part of an investigation into twisted intel. He's the ultimate insider who has been warning us since 2003 about these guys.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KansDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-07-05 03:07 PM
Response to Original message

12. It doesn't matter. Based on this "logic" (and I use the term loosely)...

Bush had the same "intel" that Clinton had regarding Osama bin Laden. Clinton advised him during the obligatory presidential changing of administrations that Osama was his Number One concern. Based on that assessment, Bush should have concentrated on Osama. He didn't.

So why did Bush "share" the same assessment of Saddam as Clinton did, but not the same assessment of Osama?

I think the Freepers should find another course of "reasoning" (and I use that term loosely)...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 03:50 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

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.