The Dems on WMDs

[southsider2k5]

This is an intersting take on the WMDs controversy. I am going to copy the post, and leave the link if people want to read it in its orginal form, emphasis included. ( do think it is more interesting in its original form)

 

http://www.northwestindiana.com/discussion...topic.php?t=443

 

Where did the WMD Intel come from?

 

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors”

- President William Jefferson Clinton 12/16/98

 

 

 

This Iraq/WMD talk which is still upsetting the NY Times, began in 1998.

 

In 1998, Bill Clinton said we had intelligence that showed Iraq was making WMD and becoming a threat to the world.

 

“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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

Maddie Albright agreed:

“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.”

–Sec. of State Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

Tom Daschle and lots of other Democrats completely agreed.

“[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:

– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

 

Sandy “Pants” Berger agreed:

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

Nancy Pelosi agreed: “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

 

Okay…I’m sure there are more quotes out there, but that’s a start. It’s 1998. We have The American President talking Iraq and WMD, and also, outlining a policy of regime change in Iraq.

 

Sen. Jon Kyl, March 12, 2004

The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not left over from the first Bush administration, but, rather, unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.

 

Not two months after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation explaining his decision to order air strikes against Iraqi military targets. He discussed the potential long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, stating,

 

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

 

“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”

 

The words, again, of President Clinton. It is hard to think of any Bush administration words more forceful, unqualified or expressive of the grave and growing danger posed by the Iraqi regime. Yet, I’ve heard no criticism of Clinton administration misuse of intelligence.

 

How can one administration’s use of intelligence be reasonable and credible, but another administration’s use of the same intelligence be an unreasonable lie?

 

In 1998, the US was certain that Saddam Hussein was acquiring and developing WMD, and that he posed a credible threat. The president said it. His party said it. The opposition party agreed. The press said it. England said it. Israel said it. France said it. China and Russia said it. EVERYONE said it. EVERYONE accepted it. These were the intelligence reports, and everyone found them believable.

 

No one acted on them, but no one declared they were false, either. While some cynics suggested that the American President’s focus on the WMD was some “dog wagging” to distract attention from an uncomfortable scandal, no one seriously entertained a notion that Saddam Hussein did NOT have WMD. Everyone believed it to be true. Or at least said they believed it.

 

In 2001, a new president took office, and was party to the same intelligence information as his predecessor. And he believed that information. And when terror struck his country, he decided that the best way to counter terrorism born in the Middle East would be to, finally, change the Middle East.

 

He had all this intelligence. He believed it. Everyone he showed it to, believed it.

 

“The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House…”

- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

 

So the new president decided it was time to act. He talked to the UN about it. He talked to Congress about it. He laid out numerous reasons why the US policy of regime change should finally be acted upon. Then he acted upon it… and he expected to find lots of WMD, based on that all that intelligence that everyone believed.

 

Whoops.

 

No WMD. Some think they’ve been spirited to Syria, but no one knows. All anyone knows is…no WMD.

 

[Let me be clear. I believe Iraq had WMD. I DO NOT think President Clinton made it all up. But if he didn’t…then neither did Bush.]

 

Now, if a president were LYING about the existance of WMD, he might think to plant a few hundred gallons of something (and maybe a funked-out nuclear device) in the desert around Iraq, in order to bolster his claim, to not look like a fool or a miscreant. But if he were simply BELIEVING the intelligence everyone else believed, why…I guess he would assume that reasonable people would say,”wow…we ALL believed that there were WMD. There were not. How come?”

 

Bush’s boner was in assuming he was dealing with reasonable people, people who understand that a “lie” is a willful mistatement of a fact, while a belief based on intelligence deemed credible by everyone in the whole world is…a belief based on intelligence deemed credible by the whole world…[but which in fact was wrong.]

 

Why was the intelligence wrong? That was a pretty big mistake, and it was a mistake made, it seems, around 1998. Where did the false intelligence come from, and who propagated it? And why?

 

Those are the questions that need answering. If the Senate wants to shut down until they are answered, I’m all for it. Let’s get a real investigation going, here. Let’s find out where the bad intel came from. Let’s find out why, when we believed such weapons existed, our FBI and CIA were not talking about it together. Let’s find out why the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Hutton Commission in England both declared that the Niger Yellowcake story was “credible” and why Britian still stands by it. Let’s find out what Able Danger did or did not confirm about WMD. Let’s find out if Sandy Berger spirited any information about what we really did or did not know, out of the National Archives. Was the whole thing another illusion, one that appealed to Saddam’s romance-novel writing machismo vanity? One that the whole world sustained because there was money to be made from the sanctions and the UN Oil-for-Food Bank for Big Guys?

 

It seems like back in 1998, and in the succeeding years, the possibility that Iraq had WMD served quite a few people with quite a few agendas. Was it all a lie laid-out-too well? One that “stupid Bush” was not SUPPOSED to believe and act on, because the things were never there?

 

I’d like the answers. We’d all like the answers. An investigation is well in order. But let’s take it from the beginning, shall we? I want to hear what President Clinton and Sec. Albright and Sandy Berger and Ted Kennedy and everyone else knew or believed, and why, right from the start. I want to hear from Kofi Annan and George Galloway and all the folks who pocketed money or barrels or oil thanks to the sanctions against “dangerous, recalcitrant” Iraq. When and what did they believe, about WMD, and why?

 

Then I would like to hear what team Bush knew or believed, and why.

 

Then I want to hear why everyone believed it until it was proved false, and then everyone’s belief simply became “one man’s lie.”

 

We are a whole nation, not merely a nation of thems and we’s. The whole nation needs to know what the whole government thought, and when it thought it; what it believed and why it believed it.

 

I suggest Sen. Reid and Sen. Durbin get to it. Mount an investigation. America deserves it. She has earned it. Her troops have earned it.

 

What was “true” in 1998, and “true” in 2003, has turned out to be “not true,” in 2005. I am at a loss to understand how that is one man’s “lie.” But if it is…which man?

 

Until we know that, here are some more quotes:

 

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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, Dec 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 mandate 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 weapons 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

 

UPDATE: Wow, SCA and I seem to be on the same wavelength. They write: We Went To War Because Bill Clinton Told The Truth

 

We went to war because Bill Clinton told the truth. The Dems would now have us believe that we ought to consider everything Mr Clinton said was a lie. If Mr Bush lied, it was because he relied on the lies of Mr Clinton. Presidents rely on each other when it comes to protecting the homeland.

 

There you go. Said about as succinctly as can be said. Either Bill Clinton told the truth about WMD, and Bush believed him. Or he lied about WMD, and Bush believed him.

 

I am curious what others think about this.

[Balta1701]

Out of simple laziness, I'm going to start off by stealing this quote from Atrios:

 

In 2002-2003 we had weapons inspectors in Iraq, thanks to the great and wonderful sabre rattling by Bush, to determine if post-1998 the capacity for any WMD had been rebuilt. They found that it hadn't, but instead of acting on that new information the Bush administration took us to war anyway.

Furthermore...the Duelfer report makes it quite clear that the 1998 bombing campaign was actually fairly important in putting a final kill on Saddam's WMD programs, so the quotes fromm 1998 and before are really unimportant.

 

And finally, let's also point out that the statements from 2001-2003 were basically all colored by the intelligence that the White House was feeding to the Congress. Remember, the White House was getting reports from its intelligence agencies and then selectively deciding what portions to release publically or even to Congress. So those same sections at the back of the Intelligence estimate which were screaming disagreement over the conclusions were often left off for Congress just as they were left off for the White House. It took some real independent work to come to the conclusion that what the WH was saying didn't make a lick of sense.

 

Here's 1 prime example of that, from a couple years ago:

 

12/15/03: (FLORIDA TODAY) U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

 

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force...

 

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

 

"They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability," Nelson said.

Overall, just remember this...George W. Bush was right to use the threat of force to get inspectors back into Iraq. The inspections in the 90's accounted for well over 95% of Saddam's WMD program. But when they were out of the country, we had no guarantee that Saddam wouldn't restart things. Getting them back in allowed us to make sure that he hadn't restarted anything.

 

The inspectors were coming back and saying our intel was garbage. Completely garbage. Instead of listening to them, or even allowing them more time, we forced them to end their job and invaded anyway. That was the mistake.

[YASNY]

So we made the mistake of relying on years worth of our own intelligence as opposed to the word of a few U.N. inspectors.

 

I can live with that "mistake".

[Texsox]

Two different men, made two very different decisions, based on some of the same intelligence. It would seem to me that in those intervening years, we gathered more intelligence. We will never know exactly why Clinton didn't go to war and we will never know exactly why Bush did. Is the country better off with the decision Clinton made, or the decision Bush made? That seems to be the question.

[southsider2k5]

So we made the mistake of relying on years worth of our own intelligence as opposed to the word of a few U.N. inspectors.

 

I can live with that "mistake".

 

From the same UN who has head many of its personel become involved in the oil for food scandals, involving Iraq as well.

[kapkomet]

Amazing how quiet this thread is. I wonder why? If this were a thread about George W. Bush's lies, it'd be at 600 pages by now, dotting the I's and crossing the T's and also giving us updates on whether or not he was lying about taking a s*** in the oval office toilet.

 

Was that a two inch turd, or a six inch turd? Would you testify to that under oath, sir?

[kapkomet]

I see you posting, Flaxx...

 

Seriously, I know part of this is old news. In fact, a lot of it is. The truth of the matter is everyone is EQUALLY to blame on the failures of this. But, it's convenient to throw water on the administration who decided to act on it more decisively then lobbing bombs on them once in a while to make headlines.

[Controlled Chaos]

Amazing how quiet this thread is.  I wonder why?  If this were a thread about George W. Bush's lies, it'd be at 600 pages by now, dotting the I's and crossing the T's and also giving us updates on whether or not he was lying about taking a s*** in the oval office toilet.

 

Was that a two inch turd, or a six inch turd?  Would you testify to that under oath, sir?

These kinds of threads are always quiet around here...

[FlaSoxxJim]

Amazing how quiet this thread is.  I wonder why?  If this were a thread about George W. Bush's lies, it'd be at 600 pages by now, dotting the I's and crossing the T's and also giving us updates on whether or not he was lying about taking a s*** in the oval office toilet.

 

Was that a two inch turd, or a six inch turd?  Would you testify to that under oath, sir?

I don't know how amazing it is. Balta's post above, #2 in the thread, makes the salient points that differentiate the two situations fairly clearly.

 

He also points out what I've tried to stress to everybody who points to Congressional Dems who backed the invasion in 2003, and that is that Congress was only showed the intel the administration wanted them to see, and it didn't have a huge "*" on it and a "This is total garbage" disclaimer attached. The administration knew that though, even if nobody else did. I mean, how are you going to hoodwink Congress into authorizing your war if you let them in on the scam?

 

I don't have much to add to that.

[FlaSoxxJim]

These kinds of threads are always quiet around here...

Yes, because that's the way the Liberal Machine wants it.

[kapkomet]

I don't know how amazing it is.  Balta's post above, #2 in the thread, makes the salient points that differentiate the two situations fairly clearly.

 

He also points out what I've tried to stress to everybody who points to Congressional Dems who backed the invasion in 2003, and that is that Congress was only showed the intel the administration wanted them to see, and it didn't have a huge "*" on it and a "This is total garbage" disclaimer attached.  The administration knew that though, even if nobody else did.  I mean, how are you going to hoodwink Congress into authorizing your war if you let them in on the scam?

 

I don't have much to add to that.

And I disagree with that. There's just as much intelligence that was floated out there pre-Bush that said exactly the same thing. I see what you're saying, but there's just as much '*' going on pre-2001 as there was in 2003.

[White Sox Josh]

Why couldn't George Bush of just watched Three Kings. I mean he would've learned a lot and we wouldn't be in this f***ing mess.

[Texsox]

Clinton made a decision and the inspectors kept going. Bush made a decision and 2,000 plus Americans are dead, we are billions more in debt, with hundreds of billions still to spend.

 

I believe Bush's decision has turned out to be wrong. In fairness, at the time, I felt it was a tough decision that would be heralded as a huge win or a huge mistake. No middle ground. I still believe that. I would not have wanted to be the man to make that decision. I don't believe it is fair to blame Bush for a wrong decision here. I'm not convinced the "evidence" was fabricated, I think it was judged with a propensity to go to war, and not a propensity to avoid war. Different people, with different views, looked at the evidence and came up with different decisions.

 

I think Americans would be better off today with out our military tied down in Iraq. I think the American economic picture would be better without the trillion dollar deficits. A wrong decision was made, but not for evil reasons. An honest decision was made. I don't know what more I can add.

[kapkomet]

Of course the REAL question to the two or six inchers is "does it float"?

 

[Texsox]

And I disagree with that.  There's just as much intelligence that was floated out there pre-Bush that said exactly the same thing.  I see what you're saying, but there's just as much '*' going on pre-2001 as there was in 2003.

 

Are you stating that Clinton or Bush made the better decision with the data?

[kapkomet]

I think the American economic picture would be better without the trillion dollar deficits.

Really? I see what you're saying, but... would it really? I'm thinking short term vs. long term. Short term, no, long term, yes, I agree with you.

 

Edit: Thing is... that's partially why we kept the war maching going, IMO, was to prop up the economy... more later. Got to go to a meeting. BLAH.

Edited November 9, 2005 by kapkomet

[Balta1701]

And I disagree with that.  There's just as much intelligence that was floated out there pre-Bush that said exactly the same thing.  I see what you're saying, but there's just as much '*' going on pre-2001 as there was in 2003.

Which is why Clinton didn't invade.

[southsider2k5]

. I think the American economic picture would be better without the trillion dollar deficits. A wrong decision was made, but not for evil reasons. An honest decision was made. I don't know what more I can add.

 

Being the Soxy of Economics I want to make just one point of emphasis here. We don't, and have never had, anything close a billion dollar deficit. Multi-trillion debt, yes. Trillion dollar deficit no.

[Texsox]

Being the Soxy of Economics I want to make just one point of emphasis here.  We don't, and have never had, anything close a billion dollar deficit.  Multi-trillion debt, yes.  Trillion dollar deficit no.

 

To amplify SS, here is a nice little CBO table showing the growth in the deficit.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

 

Notice the last surpluses came at the end of Clinton's second term. The largest deficits have been during Republican administrations, the lowest deficits, and the only surpluses in a long time, came during Democratic administrations.

 

I always felt that fiscal responsibility was the cornerstone of the GOP platform and the #1 reason I would vote GOP.

[Balta1701]

From the same UN who has head many of its personel become involved in the oil for food scandals, involving Iraq as well.

There were many in the U.S. government who's donors (or even relatives, such as our President) stood in position to profit from a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Does that mean that we should not have trusted anything they said on the topic either?

 

The reality is this; in the late 90's, the UNSCOM team accounted for well over 95% of the WMD's that Iraq produced before GW1. Their reports clearly say this. There were, however, some gaps in their reports. That is why Clinton launched Operation Rommel in 98, and that is why it was important to get the inspectors back in after Operation Rommel finished (a clear failure of the Clinton Admin, btw.)

 

Let's make 1 thing clear about Operation Rommel; it was launched for 1 specific reason; because Saddam was placing locations off limits to the UNSCOM team. This was a clear violation of the surrender agreements of the first gulf war and the subsequent UN Resolutions. Clinton's response was fully justified in that regard. Clinton's bombing campaign was not sold based on intel from defectors, or phony satellite photos, etc. Clinton's bombing campaign was sold because Saddam would not let the UNSCOM team into his palaces, among other places, and that could have given him the ability to hide illegal weapons.

 

When the UNMOVIC team went in, they went in during late 2002. When they entered the country, they were allowed access to the places that UNSCOM wasn't allowed into. They were allowed full access to look at the equipment. They were given U.S. intelligence about where the weapons supposedly were.

 

They went to these sites and found...guess what:

The intelligence the U.S. was getting from defectors was garbage

The equipment that Saddam had which was placed under seal by the UNSCOM teams had 4 years of dust built up on it and had not been touched.

The old stockpiles of decaying weapons that UNSCOM had buried/sealed had not been disturbed

The new activity at sites was totally unrelated to WMD production.

 

No matter what you think of the Oil for Food program, UNSCOM did an excellent job of documenting what Saddam had produced, how much had been used, and where the rest had gone. There were small gaps in those numbers, which would happen even if you put the UNSCOM team in the U.S. and told them to account for every single shell. You just can't do it. But overall, UNSCOM did one Hell of a job dismantling everything, and Desert Fox seems to have nailed the rest.

 

When UNMOVIC went in, it started putting out data which confirmed this fact, and disagreed with the U.S. intelligence, which was based almost entirely on reports from Iraqi defectors, a notoriously unreliable source (defectors in general are unreliable because they've basically been bribed to tell people things).

 

Let's make this last point as clear as I can: had Bush waited on the invasion in 2003, there would have been no invasion, because the UNMOVIC teams were rapidly confirming that Iraq was disarmed. The UNMOVIC teams were showing conclusively that Iraq was in compliance with UN Resolutions about WMD's. They were not producing any additional ones, and they possessed none. Had Bush not pulled them out and launched his war, there would have been no war, because the UNMOVIC team would have completely removed his chosen Causus Belli.

[Balta1701]

To amplify SS, here is a nice little CBO table showing the growth in the deficit.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

 

Notice the last surpluses came at the end of Clinton's second term. The largest deficits have been during Republican administrations, the lowest deficits, and the only surpluses in a long time, came during Democratic administrations.

 

I always felt that fiscal responsibility was the cornerstone of the GOP platform and the #1 reason I would vote GOP.

"President Bush and the current administration have borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined," reports CNSNews. From 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.

Link.

[hi8is]

so you mean 2 + 2 does equal 5?

[kapkomet]

Which is why Clinton didn't invade.

I'd like to call Bull s*** on that one.

 

You make it out like the man was on his pedistal and didn't do it for "golden boy" reasons. He didn't do it because he didn't have a mandate to. Whether we like it or not, 9/11 gave him the mandate.

 

One of two things would have happened if Bill Clinton would have been presiding as President during 9/11 regarding Iraq...

 

1) He would have acted on the same intelligence

 

or

 

2) We would have been attacked again after 9/11 - on the same scale of attack.

 

And now, I'll get the story that the two aren't connected. Yes, they are. In principal, they are.

 

Edit: Just saw your second post on the issue that there would not have been a war. Personally, I think Clinton would have acted just about the same way. I still believe that. The United States has had a hard on (pardon the pun) for Middle East activity since 1990 and really before that. More like 1948.

Edited November 9, 2005 by kapkomet

[Texsox]

Kap, I'm going to call b.s. speculation on your statement that we haven't been attacked again because of Iraq. What did our war with Iraq do to stop Bin Laden? Does he fear a reprisal attack on his country? We don't even know where he is. Are all the terrorists in Iraq and we got them all?

 

I don't see how you can say by attacking Iraq we stopped every nut ball idealist from attacking.

 

We have not been attacked fr a variety of reasons and the war with Iraq is not a big factor and I would want to explore the idea that diverting so much resources to Iraq that we have hurt our domestic security, not increased it.

 

I will agree that Clinton's actions *and* the resulting investigation, limited any response he may have had. If he did launch the same attack, the GOP attack dogs would have been chanting tail wag the dog.

[Balta1701]

I will agree that Clinton's actions *and* the resulting investigation, limited any response he may have had. If he did launch the same attack, the GOP attack dogs would have been chanting tail wag the dog.

This, by the way, is the single most important reason why I still think to this day that Clinton should have resigned in 98.