White House fires back at Democrats over prewar threat

[central scrutinizer]

Here we go - Bushco didn't lie about the need to invade Iraq. It was Clinton's fault, says Snotty McClellan.

excerpt:

WASHINGTON - The White House sought to deflect politically charged questions Wednesday about President Bush's use of prewar intelligence in Iraq, saying Democrats, too, had concluded Saddam Hussein was a threat.

``If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they've made,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He said the Clinton administration and fellow Democrats ``used the intelligence to come to the same conclusion that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a threat.''

more at:

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/11/03/a1.senate.1103.p1.php?section=nation_world

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Dems didn't come to the same conclusions

Dems didn't illegally invade Iraq. End of discussion.

[MercutioATC]

24. No, they just gave Congressional authorization to invade Iraq...

We bit ourselves in the ass on this one. That's why I made such a big stink about it at the time. The Dems who voted for the IWR were either weak or stupid.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. I'll agree with you there

However, not all Dems voted for the IWR, and, as I recall, Rep. Kucinich spoke out against it.

[MercutioATC]

28. That's true. It wasn't popular, but they had the guts to do it anyway.

I have a great deal of respect for that.

[Kolesar]

40. Most of the House Dems voted against the IWR

Led by Kucinich and Pelosi, and while Gephardt was still Speaker (he resigned later to run for President). I think 2/3 of them voted no.

[ashling]

84. My Congressman at the time

voted against it - Cong. Brian Baird, Washington - as did others

[sandnsea]

72. See how this keeps playing out?

This is the primary reason this pisses me off so much. If the IWR vote had not been framed as a vote for war, then they couldn't blame it on the Dems. If we had used the words Bush himself used, that it was to keep the peace and get the inspectors in, then we could ask him why he didn't let the inspectors finish. But noooo, we just had to make the Dems more accountable than Bush.

And I still think Reid should have focused on exposing the cabal first, and the WMD lies later. The lies don't make sense except in the context of the global domination desires of the cabal.

[complain jane]

2. And yet it was still George W. Bush who started the war, wasn't it?

Idiots. I thought they were the part of "personal responsibility".

[4dsc]

54. You are correct sir

The previous adminstration did not illegally invade Iraq!!

[otohara]

59. And Still Yet, Shouldn't His Daddy Have Removed Saddam

in the Gulf War to disarm him of the WMD's we gave him back in 91?

Hey, President Carter said it on The Today Show.

[reprobate]

76. His daddy didn't remove Saddam for good reasons he has stated publicly.

Those reasons included the fact that without Saddam there to keep a lid on the population of independent tribes, Iraq would degenerate into just the same civil war and violence that we see today.

It should be remembered that sometimes the best solution is not the one you'd pick if you had the choice.

[blm]

3. No Democrat would have invaded AFTER weapons inspectors were finding

NO NEED TO INVADE.

Care to address THAT one, Scotty?

[skylarmae]

14. that's what I've been screaming at the tele - clinton had already

been gone two years + by the time georgie porgie invaded..

[lyonn]

44. Bush did squat about the U.S. ship that was attacked in

Yemen. Clinton held off attacking Osama since he was leaving office and felt that the bush admin. could take the info his intel had and respond. There was no response from bush on that issue. He was too busy pushing star wars again.

[Arkansas Granny]

35. The keep screaming that Clinton thought Saddam had WMD too.

At that time, that was a true statement. Saddam had prevented the weapons inspectors from completing their inspections before they were forced to leave the country. That is what made Clinton and the rest of the world believe that the WMD were there.

In 2003, Saddam was letting them perform the inspections they wanted and Bush kicked them out before they found out that Saddam was telling the truth about not having WMD. If they had been able to complete their inspections, Bush would have lost his most important reason for invasion.

[blm]

42. That's why media pushed idea that IWR was a vote for war instead of

pointing out that Bush was in violation of the IWR's guidelines when he stopped weapons inspections and invaded Iraq.

Media helped BushInc by acting as if Bush was in accordance with IWR so they pushed the blank check meme.

[Arkansas Granny]

46. Ah yes. That's why they call it the "liberal media", huh.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Care to point out the violation(s)?

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html



'Cause I'm just not seeing them. Blank check.

[blm]

57. He was to make that determination AFTER weapons inspections

and diplomatic measures were taken and military action was unavoidable.

Bush's determination that war was still necessary for national security even after weapons inspections is his own lie.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

58. Please point out the applicable tract.

Thanks in advance.

[blm]

60. You didn't post the entire IWR, you left out that weapons inspections

and diplomacy were requirements BEFORE Bush made his determination and that he would be required to state that he made the determination that war was necessary for national security in an OFFICIAL Letter to Congress.

Here's some of Bomifaz' testimony to Conyers hearing on DSM from AfterDowningStreet :

The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Minutes, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on 'preemptive' purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?

In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that 'the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.' Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to 'protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...' Dean states that the report accompanying the letter 'is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.' Worse Than Watergate at 148.

If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Minutes is true, then the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. ' 371, which makes it a felony 'to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...'; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. ' 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.
>>>.

btw....are you determined to spread the disinfo that the IWR is to blame and that in the hands of ANY president the IWR would lead to invasion of Iraq? Because my read is that the IWR would have PREVENTED war if implemented by an honest president.

I can't name ONE Democrat who would have gone to war in Iraq after weapons inspections were proving that military action was unnecessary. Not even Lieberman.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. Please post the applicable tract.

Thanks in advance.

[blm]

62. You have one part of the IWR, post the rest that you mistakenly left out.

And if you don't agree with Bonifaz just say so. i happen to agree with him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. Please post the applicable tract that I've "left out."

Thanks in advance.

[blm]

64. That you left out on purpose?

I am guessing that you are not understanding that weapons inspections is part of the UN resolution that the IWR references here as part of the diplomatic efforts. Or are you trying to purposely snow people that weapons inspections never were part of the IWR?





a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
**********

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

66. Please post the applicable tract that you pretend to know about.

If you have something to support your position, please post it it.

You're accusing me of leaving something out. This suggests that you have information. Please post it. Or admit that you're blowing smoke.

If you need a clue, see your post #42 that started this nonsense.

Just post the applicable text of the IWR that backs up your statement. Easy. Stop stalling.

Thanks in advance.

[blm]

67. Not stalling...it's posted above...but YOU are the one deliberately

trying to submit that weapons inspections weren't in the guidelines when they absolutely were as part of the reference to the UN resolution.

And YOU are also trying to pretend that IWR was the cause of the war without EVER acknowledging that in the hands of any other president the IWR would NOT have taken us to war.

Only Rove and a handful of operatives would posit that Bush had no guidelines in the IWR that he was required to uphold faithfully.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. Nice edit. (6 minutes after my post)

(to interested viewers: the text of the IWR wasn't originally listed by blm in #64. And furthermore, this text was linked in my original post #52.)

I'll play anyway.

I left nothing out. I linked to the entire text of the resolution and "snipped" what I believe are the relevant passages.

Be that as it may...

a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The passage in bold is the authorization. The passages in red, which pertain to diplomacy are subservient to the AUTHORIZATION. The passage in blue, which uses the word "shall"(a legally binding word) just says that once Chimp makes up his mind, pursuant to the authorization, he has to notify Congress. You'll notice that the passages in red, which you rely on, don't have legally binding words such as "authorize," "shall" and "must."

[blm]

75. In another forum when you posted - and copying the final version of IWR

which is somewhat different than the original version submitted.

And, just as I guessed, you are SPINNING the guidelines that require weapons inspections as per UN res the same way Karl did with the press.

LET BUSH OFF THE HOOK. That's what you're doing with your deliberate spin AGAINST the weapons inspections and the diplomcy guidelines.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

80. Show me the REQUIREMENTS.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

There is zero language that bound Chimp to weapons inspections.

The tract that you pointed to has NO binding legal language. None. So stop saying that it does. Stop saying that I'm spinning. If Chimp bypassed binding requirements re: weapons inspections and diplomacy we would have heard about it (even though simply reading the document shows that there is no such binding language). What you're really talking about is promises of diplomacy made by Chimp--at least that is what we have been told by the IWR signees. And, shock of all shocks, Chimp lied.

And frankly I'm insulted by the suggestion that I'm "letting Chimp off the hook." No one is a harsher critic of his than I. Chimp deserves the lion's share of the blame for the Iraq debacle- that's understood by everyone. What's really going on is that YOU are trying to "spin" and "unhook" the complicity of certain Democratic politicians without which this war would not have happened.

Say they were lied to. But don't say they didn't know exactly what they were voting for. Kerry was a prosecutor. He knew the binding tracts in the legislation and diplomacy wasn't one of them.

Two words in the IWR that say it all:

"...his determination..."


Get a clue.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

43. What is Hillary saying now?

Write her and ask:

http://clinton.senate.gov/

[Shakespeare]

4. Ah, yes. The "blame Clinton" approach.

Well, that's a new idea. Not. :eyes:

These people will never, EVER take responsibility for anything they've done.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. Saying Saddam was a threat and invading a sovereign

nation are two entirely different things. Kim Jong Il is a threat, too -- that doesn't mean we should invade North Korea.

[MrModerate]

15. What! You peeked at the secret briefing!

I thought we agreed we weren't going to talk about "invading" country X.

Are you sure you have the proper clearances?

--KR

[Blue_In_AK]

17. Oh, crap, I'm sorry....

I didn't mean to blow the cover. :blush:

[nguoihue]

51. Shouldn't invade N. Korea

Nope, no oil there and it's a fur piece from our 51'st state.

[electropop]

6. How many troops did Clinton get killed in Iraq?

How many people did Clinton destroy to cover lies about Iraq? Snotty is such a nose-gob.

[Loonman]

7. Clinton didn't invade, Scotty

You fucking worm.

Use an original talking point, for once.

[99Pancakes]

8. So is he trying to look like a Democrat now?

Who wrote that contingency plan?

[jedicord]

9. PNAC sent a letter to Clinton in 1998 requesting he invade Iraq...

and he refused.

Members of PNAC? um, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle et al.

GAWD can't the MSM bring this up?

[UpInArms]

13. here's some of the text of that letter and signatories

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

<snip>

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

<snip>

Elliott Abrams    Richard L. Armitage    William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner    John Bolton    Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama    Robert Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol    Richard Perle    Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld    William Schneider, Jr.    Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz    R. James Woolsey    Robert B. Zoellick

[jedicord]

19. Thank you for the link, I've been searching for it for weeks now.

Kristol, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Bennett...

:scared:

[UpInArms]

50. "F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." GWB - March 2002

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/timep.saddam.tm/

How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room. A year later, Bush's outburst has been translated into action, as cruise missiles and smart bombs slam into Baghdad.

But the apparent simplicity of his message belies the gravity at hand. Sure, the outcome is certain: America will win the war, and Saddam will be taken out. But what is unfolding in Iraq is far bigger than regime change or even the elimination of dangerous weapons.

<snip>

For some in the Administration, the principles that have shaped policy on Iraq are generally applicable; they could be used with other nations, like Iran or North Korea, that have or threaten to acquire terrible weapons. The least understood story of the Iraq crisis is how the idea behind it took root and eventually brought America to the edge of Baghdad. In this battle march of an idea, there are four central players: President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and--least known to the general public--Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

...more...

This is Bush's war - not Clinton's -

Don't ever let anyone tell you different.

:toast:

[NYC Liberal]

10. Really? And Bill Clinton invaded Iraq? Gee, I must have forgotten about

that!

I don't care what Clinton said here. The fact is, he still did not invade and occupy Iraq and he still did not kill thousands by doing so. Bush, on the other hand, DID. So he is responsible. End of story.

[meganmonkey]

37. Well, he did bomb the shit out of Iraq for several days in 1998

after using the UN weapons inspection information to determine targets, which was rather nasty since the Iraqis were cooperating by letting the inspectors in to begin with...Gotta mention that for the sake of truth.

But I agree with your overall premise. The responsibility for the Iraq War is on the shoulders of bushco, and they can try to shrug it off but America isn't falling for their bullshit any more.

We are taking our country back!

:patriot:

[blueintenn]

11. Yes, let's blame Clenis.

:puke:

BIT

[marbuc]

12. If their intent were sincere they should have no problem

with an investigation.

[Deep13]

16. Spokesliar wrong again.

Clinton thought Saddam was a threat. He did not think Saddam was an emminent threat because of nuclear weapons as Dubya claimed falsely. Clinton would not have invaded without compelling reason. If Clinton had invaded based on the Dubya information, we would be calling for his impeachment despite his party. That's how we are. Let's look at a box score for a moment.

Rs:
House Maj. Leader: indicted for money laundering
his replacement: under suspicion for similar offenses.
Senate Maj. Leader: Being investigated for corruption
V.P. Chief of Staff: Indicted for obstruction of justice
Pres. Chief of Staff: investigated for treason
V.P.: investgated for treason, lying to promote war, corruption
Pres.: investigated for lying to promote war, corruption, incompetence
FEMA's Brown: fired for incompetence.
Ohio's Bush fund raiser: Indicted on state corruption charges
Ohio's governor & Bush cheerleader: Convicted of corruption.

past Rs:
Nixon: resigned due to corruption, obstruction of justice etc.
Reagan: Waged illegal mercenary war from the WH

Ds:
Clinton got blow job, prosecutors failed to get majority in Senate (2/3 needed for conviction). Perjury is in dispute.

[NYCGirl]

18. If that's "firing back", they're OUT OF AMMUNITION!! NT

[Nite Owl]

21. Sounds of desperation

same old lines and they don't seem to be working anymore.

[Beetwasher]

20. Chimpy's Conclusion: Invade

Clinton's conclusion: No Invasion.

End of story.

[Birthmark]

22. But Clinton straightened all that out. Colin Powell said so

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. 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.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm

If in 2001 Saddam couldn't even threaten his neighbors, then this is all on the Bush Administration.

[noahmijo]

23. BIG DIFFERENCE CLINTON DIDN'T GIVE IN TO THE PNAC AND INVADE

FUCKING ASSROACHES!!!!


Grr that's it I've been on DU for less than a minute already I need to go hit the bag and pretend it's Scotty.

[Inland]

48. Info the same, presidents change--and one insists on stupid war

Isn't it funny that the repugs argued that Clinton had the exact same info as Bush, but somehow Clinton managed to avoid a once-in-a-hundred-years fuckup while Bush demanded it and still can't admit it was a mistake?

Info the same, president's change, and the country lead into a huge shithole of a disaster. That's what they are telling us.

[Bob3]

25. and yet they didn't invade - why Scotty?

That question has to be answered? Why? Maybe because they had some doubts over the intelligence? Maybe they had working fore brains? Maybe they knew we would end up waist deep in shit and sinking with buzzards pecking out our eyes?

And there are threats and there are threats. The Clinton administration didn't decide that Saddam was an immediate threat requiring invasion and the diversion of resources from the hunt for Ossama Ben Laden - that was your crew.

Heaven above for one reporter to just stand up and say "Scotty what you just said was complete and utter bullshit. I'd like to know why you wasting the countries time with this drivel?"

[Marnieworld]

27. These geniuses are taking on Bubba?

The man never backs down from a fight and he never loses. I can't wait to hear his response.

[Buford Pusser]

29. It was all about the NUKES, which Dems said little about, if anything

The Dems said plenty about WMD (bio and chemical) but little, if anything, about Nukes.

That was all Bush's doing. (And Condi's, Rumsfeld's, and Cheney's.)

And the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over an American city, was the deal maker, cinching a lot of otherwise contrarian support for the war.

What's more, in 1998, the Dems may well have been right about the existence of WMD limited to bio and chemical weapons: there is some evidence that what remained of those weapons after the first Gulf War, were destroyed following Clinton's wagging the dog, supposedly, in 1998.

Come 2002, the Dems were relying on Bush's word, and many trusted him after we'd been traumatized by 911.

But the thing is: this trust rested on Bush's twisted intelligence, not the intelligence of Bill Clinton. You see the trouble there!

And you can see why the Dems pushed for giving the inspectors time; and why Bush resisted it.

Bush knew.

The Dems didn't.

I've seen the same phenomenon work out in old episodes of "Columbo". While every one else is looking for the murder weapon, the bad guy ain't -- cuz he knew he threw it in the river.

[newspeak]

78. yeah,

and this administration was so concerned about nukes, that when we invaded, we rushed to secure the oil ministry and left the nukes exposed.:eyes:

[AzDar]

30. Clinton and the Democrats did NOT fabricate evidence in order

to invade and occupy a sovereign nation illegally.
The Democrats who voted for war did so BASED on this pack of lies and fabrications...it's so appropriate, I suppose, that this is their defense; soooo second-grade: "Billy Clinton said Saddam was a threat, too, why isn't HE in trouble?"
Lying, thieving, finger-pointing, war-mongering, BUSTED bunch of CRYBABIES!!!

[maximovich]

31. The White House is Looking Mighty Childish

over something this serious!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

32. If Dumbyass valued Clinton's advice so much

why did 9/11 happen?

[still_one]

33. first clinton never invaded and occuppied Iraq

and there is no evidence that he would have done so

second and most important, clinton is NOT in charge, they are, and it is there fault if they didn't do the due dilligence. If they want to blame clinton for this, then they are responsible for 9/11, because clinton warned them about that

[TheCowsCameHome]

34. Snotty McFelon is just another wart on the ass of the White House

[xchrom]

36. clinton can make all the statements he wants/ed

it was bushco who eliminated all dissenting evidence for achieving war.

it's bush who has laid to rest 2000 and counting american soldiers fo NO weapons of mass destruction.

it's bush who presides of the continuing mayhem in iraq.

it's bush who sent powell to the u.n. to make statements that later powel had to backpedal on.

it wasn't clinton who led us into a fabricated war -- it was bush.

[HuffleClaw]

38. CLIIINTOOON

they really do only have a pitiful handful of excuses and this is their weakest one. its comical.

[Dawgs]

39. All of these threads are correct...

It comes down to one thing...

Only 35% or less will buy the Clinton attacks. Everyone else knows whose responsible.

[twaddler01]

41. This is what happens when people to stand up

for what they believe in! :spank:

[warrens]

45. With the tiny, itsy bitsy difference

That Clinton didn't get a hundred thousand people killed and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted and stolen.

[The Roux Comes First]

47. The Hubris-administration was fumbling handoffs from day one

Of course as long as we are on the subject of what the Clinton administration did and didn't do, how about getting some real dialogue going on the briefings and warnings provided to the incoming Bush folks about imminent terrorist threats?

[daleo]

49. Who invaded Iraq, though?

If you said George Bush, you'd be correct twice.

[madmark]

53. At what point into Bush' second term does the statute of limitations

kick in as to prior administrations position?

[JerseygirlCT]

55. Oh really. Is it STILL all Clinton's fault? nt

[Maggie_May]

56. Do they think we are stupid

of course Saddam Hussein was a threat did we invade him no. We had Saddam Hussein in a box. We have bigger threats than Saddam Hussein ever could be. I hate when they think we are stupid.:grr:

[symbolman]

65. Maybe they'd like to talk about who ARMED

BOTH Osama and Saddam..

Answer BUSH SENIOR. (and Reagan)

Maybe we would have never had to attack Iraq in the first place, or at all.

[blm]

68. Yeah Scotty, open up the books on IranContra and BCCI and clear

up all this mess....you can prove it started long before YOUR dictatortot got involved.

[symbolman]

71. DicTatorTot?

That makes me hungry :)

Bush Senior of course cloaked the sales in Agricultural Loans to Iraq, but it was for WEAPONS.

Now HERE is where these guys are stupid, after having researched all this for a year to make my film "Rove's War" (2 DVD set of 150 minutes of RED MEAT at http://www.takebackthemedia.com) I discovered that YES INDEED the Iraqis HAD a Centrifuge Program, and not all that LONG ago, and it was sold to them by the GERMANS, very complex and sophisticated machines, AND they already HAD 500 tons of Yellowcake..

Saw this on an incredible Documentary (can't recall the name) on Sundance..

If they had played THAT up, they could have convinced ME that there was a serious problem there - but of course the Gang that Can't Shoot Straight would rather MAKE CRAP UP than actually go after the REAL THING..

I think THIS Is why the IAEA laughed them out of the UN, because the Aluminum tubes needed are VERY PRECISE and the ones they showed on TV could have been used to LAWN chairs or making Children's Playgrounds - or running water to a building..

A REAL tube would have been created to such SPECS that if you TOUCHED it, it would be ruined and you could bend one just by picking it up..

If I was evil and they wanted to WIN I could out shoot these guys any time :)

I wonder if Bush will use the Reagan defense, "I FORGOT" 111 TIMES?

[Whoa_Nelly]

69. Oh, Boo the fuck Hoo! Bush Admin. COULDA been great 'cept for

those darn Clintons!!! They wrecked any chance that Bush coulda been the great Uniter...and more! Pesky, pesky Clintons! Tsk, tsk!

[Wise Doubter]

73. And, I used to believe in Santa Clause for years.......

until I found out my parents were LYING !!!

[AntiFascist]

74. This is unbelievable...

I'm beginning to think Bill Clinton STILL runs this country.

[newspeak]

77. uh, excuse me Scott

he lied and the media was complicit when stating Saddam had wmds and could launch an immediate attack on the US. I don't give a ratsass if this administration or the previous administration thought Saddam should be taken out--he lied to the American public!!! Furthermore, Clinton's 2nd term in office was with a Republican congress, and the neocons were pushing for years for war. I'm not buying it!!!!!!

[0rganism]

79. Word(s) for the day: "False Equivalence"

The Clinton administration's Iraq intelligence was at least 3 years old by the time the dipshits in the current administration decided to cherry-pick it for invasion excuses. Indeed, Clinton had weapons inspectors in Iraq DESTROYING the weapons when they DID exist. Basically, any statement from the previous administration dated prior to 1998 is COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

More to the point, even the Bush administration got the UN to put weapons inspectors back in Iraq -- and then demanded that they be withdrawn so the invasion could proceed!

Finally, two bonus words from the logical fallacies department: "tu quoque". Saying "well he did it too" does NOT justify anything.

Looks like Scotty can't do any better than the crap that freepers spam out on the internet nowadays.

[twaddler01]

83. True...

look at this:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/iraqintell/home.cfm

[Gyre]

81. I can't wait to see that wanker

swinging from a street light.:evilgrin:

Gyre

[twaddler01]

82. McClellan

is a dumba$$!

[SOS]

85. OK Scotty

Why didn't Bush invade Iraq in January 2001 as his first order as President?
Since "everyone" knew of this great WMD danger, Bush should have launched his war on the first day he was in office. Why did Bush fail?