I’m tired of this “same policy as the prior administration” crap!

[Brotherjohn]

Now we have Bush’s hand-selected weapons inspector, David Kay, carting it out in announcing that Iraq had no WMDs. It’s the administration’s last thread to hang on as a defense for the war.

The Clinton administration may have desired “regime change” in Iraq (who didn’t?). They may have relied on much of the same evidence the Bush administration. They may have drawn similar conclusions, in that they thought it was likely that Hussein restarted some level of WMD work.

But the Clinton administration and the Bush administration had VERY different ideas about the level of the threat and the course of action we should take. The Clinton administration interpreted the same evidence much more cautiously (they actually listened to the caveats from the intelligence agencies). The Clinton administration did NOT think there was an imminent, “grave and gathering”… or whatever you want to call it… threat. The Clinton administration did NOT initiate an unprecedented, pre-emptive invasion and conquer and occupy Iraq. If their policy was so similar to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, then why did Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz write the Clinton administration in January 1998, in the name of their think tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC) urging for a change in U.S. policy and regime change in Iraq?

The Clinton administration interpreted much of the same evidence that the Bush administration had at their disposal coming into office to read that Iraq was an aggressive, potentially dangerous nation that required containment, sanctions, and very limited military action. The Bush administration interpreted this evidence to read that Iraq HAD WMDs NOW, and HAD to be attacked, conquered and occupied NOW. History has shown which administration was right. In addition, the Bush administration was not as “in the dark” as the Clinton administration, because U.N. weapons inspectors had returned and gathered months’ worth of on-site evidence of the status of Iraq’s WMD programs. Unfortunately for Bush, the U.N. revealed NO new evidence of WMD acitivity, only a failure to fully account for absolutely every shred of WMD-related material that Iraq MAY have possessed in the past (but which likely was already long past its shelf-life anyway).

This “miscalculation” (that word assumes it was the result of incompetence and not intentional) has come at a cost of hundreds of American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives, tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars from the pockets of American taxpayers, and the perhaps irreparable harm to many of our long-time alliances and our credibility in the world (you can tack “and counting” to the end of each of these costs).

“Same policy as the prior administration”. PLEASE! Whomever the Democratic nominee ends up being better call them on this one… often and LOUDLY.

[slor]

1. Amen BrotherJohn...

you said it well my friend!

[beyurslf]

2. Very sound reasoning. I am glad someone is listening!

[dennis4868]

3. Thanks....

over and over I hear from the corporate news people that Clinton and the international intelligence community agreed with Bush's assessment of the Iraqi WMD threat. But that is so NOT true. As a matter of fact from what I have read and heard on radio, TV, and from watching UNCOVERED the other day, the intelligence community told the Bush White House that it was very questionable whether or not Sadaam in fact had WMD. But over and over Bush and his thugs selected the evidence they wanted to rely on and intentionally misinterpreted what people were telling them about Sadaam. For example, Sadaam son in law said a while back that Sadaam had WMD.....Bush and Cheney relied on this to tell us that Sadaam had WMD. However, Bush did not tell us the rest of that statement from his son in law....that he was ordered to and did indeed destroy the WMD that he was in charge of. These are the kinds of games that Bush was playing....and now over 500 of our troops are dead because of it.

[Brotherjohn]

6. Yes, it is so clear to anyone who read and paid attention. That is why...

... I think it is SO important for the Dem nominee (Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Dean, whoever...) REPEATEDLY make it LOUD and CLEAR that this administration's policy was a drastic shift (as if 500+ American deaths does not indicate that), and an UNNECCESSARY one.

It should be made clear that it was either a horribly incompetent "miscalculation", or a horribly sinister deception. It's either one or the other. Either way, it's horrible.

"New lens" of 9-11 or not, this war was not necessary, and has probably caused more harm than it will ever prevent.

[bryant69]

4. True but problemattic

The problem is that we have two groups of people being melanged into one. One group of liberals believed that Saddam Hussein was never a threat. The other group of liberals believed that Saddam was a potential threat but one that could be contained (and in this second group is where one would have to put President Clinton and most of the Democratic party Candidates).

The first group feels vindicated, and has made statements to the effect that Saddam was never a threat, never had WMDs that would threaten the United States. Well, Conservatives respond just like you have said, "Well your precious President Clinton seemed to think that Saddam was menace and had these WMDs. Doesn't that prove you are a hypocrite?"

Nope. It only proves that the conservative speaker doesn't understand that the part isnt' exactly the same as the whole.

Of course these are the same people who apparently believe that the only options in foreign policy are an invasion or "doing nothing" so perhaps we should not be too hard on them.

The contrast between a Grown up like Clinton and a spoiled bully like President Bush is pretty stark.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Redleg]

5. Different policies-

Clinton and Bush both appeared to believe Iraq possessed WMDs in sufficient amounts to pose a threat. Clinton did not appear to think Iraq an imminent threat to the USA. Clinton's policy was to work with the international community to contain Iraq while Bush's policy was to virtually unilaterally invade Iraq.

[dennis4868]

7. different belief....

Clinton never believed that Sadaam posed an imminent threat to our national security. Yes, Clinton believed that Sadaam like many other wackos were a threat and had to be dealt with, but he never believed that Sadaam was such a threat that he could destroy our country in 45 minutes!

[Redleg]

8. I agree with that and should have clarified that in my post.

What the heck, that's what the edit button is for!

[Brotherjohn]

9. And a big part of why Clinton's policy was different was that his belief..

... wasn't as rock-solid. It's really a question of how firmly they held the "belief". But its' pretty darn clear that the difference here was drastic, and the difference in policy reflects that.

The Clinton administration had "similar" beliefs, yes, in that they also felt Iraq was a threat and probably had re-developed some WMD capability.

But with the Bush administration, there was no "probably" about it. Iraq WAS working with Al Qaeda (Powell, Feb. 2003). Iraq HAD reconstituted nuclear weapons (Cheney in March 2003). Iraq HAD chemical and bio-weapons and we KNEW where they were (Rumsfeld, March 2002).

The Clinton administration knew that the worst case (Iraq having nukes, Iraq working with terrorists) was pretty unlikely, and did not have sufficient evidence to ever make that case, so they did not. The Bush administration, with no better evidence (actually, with more evidence to the contrary), outright said that this was the case.

[Redleg]

14. Good point.

I agree.

[Brotherjohn]

10. What it amounts to is "Clinton thought he was bad, too! Therefore we...

... were right in going to war!" (awfully ironic in light of the knee-jerk reaction of blaming Clinton for everything)

It is such a shallow, flawed "analysis" that it's a wonder any of these people ever acheived anything in their fields. I can only think they're preaching to their target audience... i.e. the middle-of-the-road voter who leans conservative and (hopefully for them)doesn't read enough to challenge them on such assertions.

[radwriter0555]

11. Read all my links here proving that the bush regime orchestrated the

CLINTON position on iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1056358

[HFishbine]

12. Well, you nailed it.

There is really nothing more to add. You have it exactly right. Now if you can just distill it into a sound bite for the sheeple.

[Brotherjohn]

13. How's this?

(coming from Kerry, Dean, whoever...)

"Sure, the prior administration also thought Iraq was a threat. But the prior administration did NOT wage an unprecedented pre-emptive invasion at the cost of thousands of Iraqi lives, loss of credibility and goodwill around the world, tens to hundreds of billions in American taxpayer dollars, and hundreds of the lives of YOUR sons and daughters (and counting). The prior administration did NOT do that!"

[Dr Fate]

15. Clinton never presented forged evidence to congress & the UN either...

Clinton never lied about invading Iraq, Bush did.

[Sterling]

16. That is the price we pay..

When we try to co-opt right wing dogma.