The flip side of this is what were Republicans saying about Desert Fox as it was happening. As I seem to recall, they didn't believe the '98 intelligence at the time, so what changed? They also were obstructing Clinton from doing anything about Iraq claiming he was just trying to change the subject from Monica Lewinski. Are they now admitting that he wasn't, that Clinton had a legitimate reason for Desert Fox?
I'd like an explanation for why when Clinton says it, it's a lie; but when Bush says it, not only is it the truth, but we must commit massive resources to a full blown war.
Posted by Donna at November 26, 2005 09:53 AMThe Glorious Leader has apparently determined that the Iraqi army (which mustered exactly one combat ready battalion in late September) is almost ready to take over for the US armed forces in Iraq. Quite a surprise, but there it is.
"Staying the Course" actually meant "Handover in early 2006". Who knew?
If the mission has been accomplished (again) and our troops will be coming home, can we now start an offical examination as to how the Bush Adminstration led us into this colossal mistake, which has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, the lives of countless Iraqis, and the death and horrendous maiming of tens of thousands of US soldiers?
If not now, when? What will be the Right's excuse now? "Get over it"? "Revisionist history"? "Damaging to the country"?
I can't wait to see what these disgraceful clowns and their empty-headed minions will dream up next.
Posted by euzoius at November 26, 2005 10:02 AMThere was an international effort to isolate and contain Saddam Hussien. What Clinton said and did was a part of that effort. If he made an allegation or threatened force or used force it was designed to isolate, contain, and pressure Saddam. It was designed to ensure he had no WMD and make it so he was not a threat. And it worked. Perfectly…. For everybody except Halliburton… But more importantly, it worked WITHOUT creating the disaster this invasion and occupation has been. To site this perfectly effective effort as justification for the treasonous, fraudulent meat grinder of a disaster Bush and Cheney got us into is as illogical as can be and perversely ironic to say the least.
"We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." - Colin Powell - FEBUARY 24, 2001
And on top of that, whenever Clinton did anything to get Bin Ladin or contain Saddamn the GOP screamed wag the dog and demanded his stop.
and oh yeah.. in case you missed it:
"We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." - Colin Powell - FEBUARY 24, 2001
I post this quote a lot. I post it because my posting of it are the only places I have ever seen it mentioned. In he say very simply, no WMD, no threat. Why have critic of this criminal rush to war not been beating the war mongers/profiteers to death with this quote since 2002? Why is it not ever mentioned in the media or by the Dems?
Posted by The Truth at November 26, 2005 11:06 AMGreat question! But it goes to the philosophical difference between Clinton and the Bush administration. Clinton, who led his administration, used force as a last resort. The Bush administration, who leads Bush, uses force without thought of consequence. As for the reasons for going into Iraq, I believe it was planned a long time ago. And yes, it's about oil, but just not the way we normally think about it.
Here's an article I just posted yesterday.
After having been involved in the 1991 Gulf War and then later having worked in some of the Gulf States consulting to governments, I felt that I had to do some research.
It's a long article, but it relates directly to this question and why the lies go way, way back.
Posted by Dave at November 26, 2005 11:23 AMI think "philosophical difference" is not the right way to put it. It is in fact the difference between resolving a small problem in a safe, effective, legal way and resolving a small problem by lying and cheating your country into a war (the worst illegality a elected leader and commit) that makes the problem much worse. It's not a philosphical difference any more than a normal law abiding citizen and a serial mass murder have philosophical mass murder have between them.
Posted by The Truth at November 26, 2005 11:32 AMAnd it only about oil in so far as this has allowed them to:
1) fund their political supports for decades to come
2) wrap themselves in the flag and win some cheap (stolen) elections.
3) enrich themselves
Okay, for the sake of arguement, which Democratic, or other party, candidates, offered sound, logical dissent before the US went into Iraq this last time? Please list quote, name, and date.
Here are the posts, and please remember, I didn't write them or collect them. Just found them collectively interesting.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham
(D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Curious,
That talking point has alreay been shot down in this thread. Since you seem to have trouble reading...
Many people said many things. There was an international effort to isolate and contain Saddam Hussien. What Clinton said and did was a part of that effort. If he made an allegation or threatened force or used force it was designed to isolate, contain, and pressure Saddam. It was designed to ensure he had no WMD and make it so he was not a threat. And it worked. Perfectly…. For everybody except Halliburton… But more importantly, it worked WITHOUT creating the disaster this invasion and occupation has been. To site this perfectly effective effort as justification for the treasonous, fraudulent meat grinder of a disaster Bush and Cheney got us into is as illogical as can be and perversely ironic to say the least.
"We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." - Colin Powell - FEBUARY 24, 2001
Curious,
Thanks for joining the list of dumb-as-a-doorpost sheep. Citing quotes from 1998 only proves the very point I made in this post.
Quotes subsequent to 1998 makes it obvious you have no regard for the basic fact that Democrats did not receive the "same" intelligence as your Dear Leader. This has been discussed at length in multiple articles and posts. Not to mention, a large number of Democrats actually voted against the Iraq resolution in 2002.
As I said, ignoramuses peddling the fake GOP talking points are plentiful.
Posted by eriposte at November 26, 2005 11:49 AMGees, you guys on the left really, really need to take a class in logical arguments rather than just regurgitating the same old mantras. Wasn't your famous leader, Karl Marx that said if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes true.
So as to your "analysis" debunking the argument that Republican's use of Clinton's statements regarding the Iraq treat was wrongly used.
You argue the the comments of Clinton regarding Sadamm's threat was not an appropriate analogy because. . .
1. Sadamm wasn't caught yet under Clinton. Well thats just plain stupid. So if the coalition soldier's hadn't caught Sadamm then the arugment would be valid? I got news for you, Sadamm was A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
2. Clinton didn't invade, therefore his evidence of WMD was irrelevant. Another lamebrained argument. The Evidence doesn't change merely because how you responded to it. Fact was Clinton was a sissy-liberal who used the armed forces only when it "felt" good or right. Not to support the U.S. And contrary to the assertions of others, the Republican supported his efforts routinely, however, they languished over his "convienent" use of the military during certain coincidental periods in his scandal ridden presidency.
3. Finally, you state that Bush had MORE information than Clinton did in 1998, therefore, he can't use Clinton's statements at all. Like right, Sadamm kicks the inspectors out and then destroys all of his stockpiles without being able to prove it, after 1998. So Sadamm dis-armed himself. Yeah right. The fact is, Bush and all senior level senators/congressman read and saw the ADDITIONAL evidence that was presented in the years following the 1998 statements of Clinton which gave them additional concerns.
Just admit it. You loved Clinton for being a fraud. You didn't like a dang time he used military force and then you are now saying he used it wisely.
You want it both ways. Typical liberal agenda.
And you wonder why Liberals can make it on talk radio? Because they have nothing to say that stands the test of reason and immediate discrimination of the listeners. Anyone who has half a brain knows that they are nothing by lies and lies about lies, so they turn it off.
Get used to it. You guys are awash with a complete dismissal of reality. You want to live in a perfect world free for everyone to act and live in freedom, as long as they live and act like you want them to.
Liberals-the most intolerant people I know.
Posted by Carpe Diem at November 26, 2005 12:17 PMFor all of their efforts to rewrite history, the one fact that Curious and his ilk can't get around is that one person and ONE PERSON ALONE made the ultimate decision to invade Iraq -- and it wasn't Bill Clinton, it wasn't John Kerry, and it wasn't any other Democrat. No, it was W himself who said "Yes sir Uncle Dicky, certainly sir, whatever you say sir!", and who took us into this misbegotten war
Posted by redstater at November 26, 2005 12:22 PMSaddam was disarmed. And even if he had not been disarmed and when he was war armed HE NEVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT ATTACKING THE UNITED STATES. He always did what was in his own best interest. Attacking the US or aiding the terrorist he hated and were trying to kill him would not have been in his best interest. Saddam was evil dude. But he was not irrational. Everything he did, including the invasion of Kuwait was designed to ensure he kept his grip on power. And it worked. If not for Bush lying about WMD Saddam would still be in power. And you will know, for decades on, you will know a secular, contained, isolated, no threat to anybody outside his borders was by far the best thing for the United States and ther rest of the world. Saddam ruling his country with a brutal fist and for some of his citizens is resulted in torture and murder. But what will replace him will be MUCH WORSE for the United States and the West.
There was a very good reason Bush 1 didn't take him out. He knew if we removed Saddam we would end up with civil war eventually settling into a radical islamic theocracy beholdent to the Mulahs in Iran.
You Republicans have f@cked up our national security so bad you'll be reminded of it every day for the rest of your lives
Posted by The Truth at November 26, 2005 01:06 PMCapre Diem,
Thanks for joining the dumb-as-a-doorpost ignoramuses club.
Your statement "1. Sadamm wasn't caught yet under Clinton" suggests you might be a great candidate for Vice President of the club. If you actually read my post, you will notice that I was pointing out that at the time your Dear Leader was talking about Saddam not being a threat any more, Bush himself had not yet caught Saddam. Not Clinton.
Thanks, once again, for making my case that Bush has a good supply of ignoramuses to peddle his fakery.
Posted by eriposte at November 26, 2005 01:16 PMBut redstater, don't ya know they were going to attack us and cause a big mushroom cloud? As Caligula, said “Let them hate so long as they fear.”
Oooh, oooh! Does that quote come with the Malcolm McDowell voice?
You know what Bush is really needing for red-blooded 'murkins to hate his guts? A snobby british accent to go with his noblesse oblige and arrogant demeanor. If it was wrapped in something like Malcolm, Bush would have already gotten his ass kicked out of power and into something painful.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 26, 2005 01:58 PMTax policy
While I'm dealing here, let me tackle the favorite GOP talking point: putting more of YOUR MONEY back in your pocket or cutting taxes for people that have more money.
Simply put, GOP economic, tax and fiscal policy does not put more money in anybody's pocket (save Halliburton, Bechtel, Hughes, Raytheon, et al) over the long term. It takes money from everybody. What puts more money is peoples pocket, rich, poor and middle class is a good economy. An economy with good job and wage growth, low interest rates and low inflation. And a good economy is brought about by good policy and leaders that inspire confidence.
GOP policy cuts taxes at the expense of education, the environment, health care, infrastructure and government sponsored research and development. Although it does put more money in the pockets of some over the short term, over the long term devoting less and less resouse to the above areas will destroy this country and make it so there is less money in everybody’s pocket. This policy will result in an undereducated, not terrible healty citizenry living sick, dying young and lagging behind the global competition in all areas of technology, commerce and trade (not to mention culture).
Government sponsored R&D and eductaion is vital in maintaining our technological lead in the world. Private R&D takes place, but it’s very expensive. Countries that will lead the next technological revolution will do so because they devoted government money to R&D and education. Cutting that funding, in short, it is a gauranteed path to failure.
Now conservatives argue that cutting taxes for the rich will trickle down, etc, etc. But that dog don't hunt. History, the last 25 years have clearly shown that simply does not happed in any way that helps the economy. What it does do is explode the deficit in the short term, which increases interest rates in the mid to long term both of which damage consumer and business confidence. And in a consumer spending/service driven economy (which we now have since the manufacturing base has fled) consumer and business confidence it vital to success.
This is why it was such a crime for Bush to talk the economy in the trash can as he did every time he opened his mouth before 9/11. He sold his tax cut but it destroyed consumer confidence. Because if you go back and read the FED policy statements after each FED meeting you will clearly see things were not bad at all. Well into 2000 they were still very worried the economy was running to hot (which is why they kept raising interest rates)
The combination of jacking up the interest rates and Bush talking about how bad things were was the most important factors in the economic slowdown. And the bad Reagonomics voodoo garbage that failed the first time we tried it took care of the rest.
But back to the policy… Real wages (that is all the money that is made by individuals in this country put together) fell in 2003 and 2004. That has never happened in the history of our republic. In the second Clinton term wage and job growth were fantastic. Bush…. Not so good. In the second Clinton term we eliminated what had been recently been the largest federal budget deficit in our history. Bush… not so good. Now unless you want to argue the policy Reagan put in place in 1981 finally kicked in 16 years later but was not responsible for the economy that got Clinton elected 11 years later, you have to admit Democratic policy makes America strong and GOP policy degrades and brings America down.
And of course if you want to credit the tech boom, fine. Gore fought hard for government funding of computer technology and was the person more responsible for anybody else on the planet for bringing among other bits of American technological brilliance, the internet, out of the publicly funded university research labs and into what it is today. This in fact is a perfect example of what I’m talking about here. We spend our tax dollars to educated people and fund in part their research and while it costs on the front end, the investments pays off in the greatest economic times in the history of our republic.
Nuff said.
By the way, I just explained why GOP public policy is a historic failure. If anybody wants a detailed explanation of why the Clinton/Dem policy works fantastically well let me know. But for now, just think of your own family. If you put your fiscal house in order first, so you have a solid finantial base to stand on, and what you do spend on is things like education and other things (not neccessarily investment in stocks or bonds, etc) that will facilitate accumulation of wealth, you'll do well.
The Dems put more money in the pockets of the people who will spend it, the poor and the middle class. In a consumer spending/service driven economy that works. The Dems gave tax cuts to industries that will (would have) allow us to lead technologically. GOP gives massive tax cuts to the rich. The rich don't change their spending habits when they get a few extra bucks.
Posted by The Truth at November 26, 2005 02:24 PMCarpe Diem: Do you have any idea which country supplied Saddam with his weapons stash? The country that provided him with anthrax, VX, agent orange, mustard gas, and bubonic plague? The United States, under Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.
If you would like de-classified document references, I will be happy to provide them.
Note how Crappy D-umb hasn't responded to any of your ripostes? It's because s/he's successfully turned the discussion away from the initial topic and onto answering the deliberate misquoting of certain historical facts - not the least of which was substituting Karl Marx for Josef Goebbels as the source of the Big Lie quote and thus demonstrating the efficacy of same.
Posted by pessimist at November 26, 2005 02:34 PMThe US supported Saddam because a secular dictator is the best thing we could have had there to keep a boot on the shia/sunni hatred. Without him Iraq and the worlds second largets oil reserves would have been controlled by the shia (who answer to Tehran). Now it will be.
It's just like conservatives to only think 1/2 step ahead: Saddam bad - get rid of him... With no thought to what the garunteend alternative will be. It's like you have no money and roof with some holes in it. So you figure it's a bad roof and you take it off. But since you have no money you have no hope of getting a new roof. So now you have no roof. Conservatives are either evil or stooooopid.
Posted by The Truth at November 26, 2005 02:44 PMLooks like we were hit with a Paid Propaganda Pushing tag team. Funny that because they follow their red leader with cult-like fervor, they assume lefties follow democratic leaders with the same blind lock-step. They don't understand critical thinking and actual research because frankly, they find it easier to do as they are told. Thinking is hard work, the poor things.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 26, 2005 03:48 PMGOP APPROPRIATION BILL BIG VICTORY FOR BIN LADIN
Bin Ladin is a smart and patient man. His objective is to beat us but the strategy is not to do battle with guns and bombs or fly planes into all our buildings. He knows full well that can’t happen. His objective as articulated on multiple occasions by the man himself is to bleed us.
He knows the more resource we spend on this war in Iraq, Afghanistan and the “war on terror” in general, the weaker we become. He knows the more we spend on this folly the further we go into debt and less we spend on education, health care, infrastructure and government sponsored technological R&D. And he knows this is a path that can only end in a weakend United States.
This appropriations bill cuts all the things that we need to be a strong country in the future in no small part to pay for this folly in Iraq. According to some, it has already cost us damn near a whole city. When informed the funds for maintaining the leveys in New Orleans were being cut, the city officials were told by the Bush administration official the reason was that money came from the same part of the budget that was paying for the war in Iraq and as a result the money was simply not there. We’re losing entire cities over this already… and we’re only three years in.
Bin Ladin should thank Allah every day for Republicans. Who knows, perhaps he does.
I can picture Georgy Boy doing the Malcolm McDowell lip-smacking, opening of his mouth to be spoonfed Big Dickie's lies like so much hospital food. And he's on the same level of sociopath as McDowell was in that movie, A Clockwork Orange.
Posted by Sharon at November 26, 2005 04:17 PMBin Ladin should thank Allah every day for Republicans. Who knows, perhaps he does.
of course i do depose the socialists, empower the theocrats, get out of saudi, and let me go free! you'd think i paid them for this!
Posted by osama at November 26, 2005 04:43 PMI read a review of Cindy Sheehan's new book, and I like her solution for how we can honor those sericemen who have already been killed: We can end the war and hold our leaders accountable for their crimes. Then our fallen comrades can rest in peace.
Posted by DOT at November 26, 2005 04:48 PMdomestically, Bush uses the same rhetoric concerning his confiscation of everyone's money in the social security trust fund. The money was essentially transferred by tax cuts to the wealthy. amazing!!!! Bush issued bonds and took the cash, and now says the bonds don't have to be honored. honor indeed!!!!
Posted by blueriver at November 26, 2005 04:49 PMThis is how you combat terrorism.
1) Get the information. Best way to do this is HUMINT. Hire a bunch of spies. Of course we don't do that because Halliburton, TRW and Hughes don't make a dime when we do, so we're all about Star Wars instead. Another great way to get threat information is to pay for it. In the poor parts of the world where these plots are hatched, this works especially well. And then of course keep up the technological intel gathering (happy now TRW?).
2) Once you have the information, quick strike. Go in under the radar and blow it to bits, assasinate it, cruise missle it, special forces it, whatever.
3) Deny you were responsible. Always deny it was you. If your caught red handed, say it was self defense.
4) Hire way more customs and immigration inspectors. Put customs inspectors, x-ray machines, and radiation detectors in every foreign port so the containers can be screened before they get anywhere near us.
5) and most important - Be a good world citizen. At least act like you care. Get involved in the Israel/Palestinian conflict in a fair and good faith way. At least appear you are trying to save the world environment and atmosphere. Don't torture people, lie about going to war, occupying Muslim countries while you accidentally kill their civilians to the tune of 10'000's of thousands by conservative estimates.
By following these five steps you directly address the threats without doing stupid shit like lying to invade and occupy a Muslim country thereby turning organizations like Al Queda from a gang in the mountains of Afghanistan to a worldwide ideology.
Also you save our military for real threats and our money for all things we need it for in order to remain strong in the future.
Yours truly,
The Truth
Democrats who “voted for the war” can explain their vote as a presidential empowerment bill, then blame bush for extending himself. Not extending as in "... the Army you have ...", but extending beyond the truth. We allow driver's licenses at 16, but take them back when the youngster gets too ... wild? For that matter, we take licenses back when students fail. Do we let the wild and/or failing little boy cry out that we let him have a license?
When Republicans respond "everyone agreed about WMD!" Well, everyone had different ideas, and the idea that screwed up is Bush's. Some people thought the UN examiners were going along quite well - the tonnage destroyed was monumental. Some thought that containment was working; that any WMD program was crippled, that his inhumane policies (conducted during Bush1) were checked. Some thought a secular Iraq hindered Islamic terrorism. But not bush!
When Republicans scream Clinton agreed, point out that Clinton's 1998 bombing was very effective, we never lost a soldier. It showed our power and capabilities, and their lack of same.. Saddam probably decided he couldn't compete with our abilities. Clinton safely saved us with the world’s approval and gratitude.
Posted by rwc at November 26, 2005 07:16 PMI won't defend any Democrat for going along with George's War rather than doing a bit of their own research before voting. But in the true Christian manner, I will forgive anyone (even Republicans) who will admit that they made a mistake in doing so.
Could we expect the same from our Wrong-Wing Wregulars?
Posted by pessimist at November 26, 2005 08:11 PMPessimist, I am with you on that, but I will take it one step further. Ask for forgivness from the American people for not doing their job.
Posted by Judith at November 26, 2005 08:31 PMThank you, eriposte, for your usual cogent analysis.
Even without considering the efficacy of the Clinton-ordered strikes, Bush's comment about "same intelligence" is stupid, because it suggests W. was relying on intelligence that was 5 years old. What kind of idiot sends troops into battle when the intelligence is years old? If Clinton had the same intelligence in 1998, what were our intelligence agencies doing since?
Of course, we know now that they were reporting that Saddam had been badly damaged by the strikes, until they were made to forget that by the White House Gang.
Posted by biggerbox at November 26, 2005 10:41 PM"I read a review of Cindy Sheehan's new book, and I like her solution for how we can honor those sericemen who have already been killed: We can end the war and hold our leaders accountable for their crimes. Then our fallen comrades can rest in peace."
DOT, I completely agree with Sheehan. That is the only way to bring honor to those who died. Punish the lying bastards who caused their deaths.
Posted by Judith at November 27, 2005 06:02 AM"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites)
Hmm, " air and missile strikes" - does that mean "invasion and occupation" in troll? cause that would explain the lack of understanding on their part.