New RNC Attack ad: Clinton made it US policy to oust Iraq

[oxbow]

This is the new meme being forwarded in an upcoming RNC commerical targeting Bush's antiwar critics. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/13/131646.shtml

What they fail to mention is that Clinton changed policy because of heavy lobbying by the PNAC, including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. See this letter from 1998, for instance: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Their fingers have been in this from the get-go. Their fearmongering started far before 9-11 and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with this. I think democrats need to be ready for this new attack and meet it head on. It's time that the American people got to know their handlers in the PNAC. As with so many other things in the Bush Admin, shining light on this will be enough to turn the people against them.

[thefloyd]

1. Wow

Huge difference between Clinton and Bushco. Clinton did not Invade Iraq.

[win_in_06]

11. That's when they will pull their 9-11 trump card.

"The world changed after 9-11"

[Nordic65]

18. It doesn't matter

Just about everybody and their grandmother now knows that the war itself was a mistake.

Pukes blaming Clinton is an indirectly admission of that failure.

Bush started the war.
His mistake, his responsibility

[MADem]

2. When all else fails, BLAME THE CLENIS!!!!!

Bush couldn't think for himself, that's their argument????

Funny as hell!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NYC Liberal]

3. I wouldn't have supported invading for no reason under Clinton either.

So what is their point?

[oxbow]

4. Even back then, Cheney and Rumsfeld were feeding the president false info

WMD! BOO!

So is it time to talk about the PNAC yet, Democrats? Why don't you just tell the people the truth?

btw-full text of clinton speech here:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

[BattyDem]

5. Oh give me a f*cking break!

:eyes:

Hey wingnuts ... Clinton's "policies" are irrelevant because one simple fact remains - HE DID NOT INVADE IRAQ! I don't care if he hated Saddam ... I don't care if he thought Saddam was dangerous ... I don't care if he believed that Saddam SHOULD be ousted because the fact remains - HE DID NOT INVADE IRAQ ... GEORGIE DID!!!!

How is it possible that Bush* has been pResident since January 20, 2001 yet he is not responsible for ANYTHING that has happened in this country since then? :shrug: :eyes: :grr:

Hey wingnuts ... I hate to break it to you, but this constant finger-pointing and "shifting of blame" just makes your guy look like even less of a leader than he is. If a man can't take responsibility for his own actions or for the actions of those who perform their duties in his name, then he is not a man at all. :P

[mondo joe]

6. How are they going to blame Clinton for their implementation?

[Zenlitened]

7. Clinton didn't throw the full weight of the US military at the problem...

... and leave us looking like CHUMPS in the end, either.

Go figure.

He didn't launch an invasion with no thought to what happens after the tanks reach Baghdad , either.

He didn't run headlong into a war whose main effect has been to make America look like a FORMER superpower, either.

Go figure.

No amount of freeper flag-waving and yellow bumper magnets will hide the fact that Bush has made america weaker in the eyes of our enemies through his sheer incompetence.

Undermine the morale of the troops? No one could do a "better" job of that than Bush himself.

And the repukes know it.

[oxbow]

8. I think their morale is undermined

especially when they are fighting alone (except for some British backup) and the violence only continues to grow. I think their morale is also undermined when they don't send in enough troops to do the job in the first place. This kind of vast nation building enterprise is what the UN was built for, freepers. It's plain as day by now that we are not doing well in Iraq.

Imagine if the UN forces had gone in together. If we hadn't rushed in alone with guns cocked and middle fingers waving at the rest of the world. We might have made a success out of Iraq after all.

And the sad thing is, no other nations want to work with us until these crooks are out of power. We just have to wait until some leaders show up who can take responsibility.

[Lisa]

9. they want it both ways, as usual

"Clinton was weak on terror." "And he started this."

Even a cursory glance shows how oversimplified (not to mention conflicting) those statements are -- but they're going to try to get away with it, anyway.

[Brundle_Fly]

10. Wasn't PNAC during this time...

1997-98 giving Clinton incredible pressure to invade and over throw?

He didn't, he said be prepared, big deal, we still were until march 2003

[radfringe]

12. If Clinton

jumped off a bridge - would bush* do the same?

sorry - but from childhood experience the "he did it too" argument never worked with my parents...

[Boo Boo]

13. There's a difference between a policy of "regime change" and

an invasion. Clinton had no intention of invading Iraq.

[erpowers]

14. Democratic Counter Ad

In a counter ad Democrats need to point out that this only became a talking point when thing in Iraq went poorly. Democrats need to point out that right after Bush mission accomplish speech Bush and Republicans balked at the idea that Clinton should even be given credit for how well the military did its job. In the next point Democrats should point out that Clinton never planned to go to war with or in Iraq. Clinton's plan called for money to be given to Iraqis in order for them to tak out their own leader. Clinton's plan never incompassed going to war.

[Toots]

15. Gee who were the people in Clinton's WHIG or his Office of Special Plans

:shrug: and why was WHIG formed anyway?

[PRETZEL]

16. easy replies,

First off if the old man could have done this (with full backing of the UN if he really tried) and this conversation really would be moot. But truth be told, the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed was really just an extension of Bush Sr. policies. But what needs to be made perfectly clear is that the law that is cited all too many times by Republicans is very, very specific as to what the role of the US was to be in the overthrowing of the Saddamm regime. It was to aid those groups that opposed him both financial and advisory so that they could overthrow the regime through internal forces, not by a military operation. Both Bush and Clinton realized what would happen with the "you break it, you own it" view.

[leetrisck]

17. Too lazy to come up with their own policy or to get

new intelligence. Oh by the way, mr. bush, what other policies of Clinton's are you following?

[gratuitous]

19. So they're saying the invasion was a mistake?

That's the conclusion I draw from their frantic efforts to once again deflect blame from Chimpy.

This game is over. Get the troops out, get the UN in, and the United States should fund for the next five years or so every governmental initiative undertaken by a democratically elected government of Iraq of whatever nature. We could get seed money from a windfall profits tax on the big oil companies.