Why Bush’s Case On Iraq Was Different From Clinton’s

[rodeodance]

Lots of clickable longer stories embedded.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/07/bush-clinton-iraq
Why Bush’s Case On Iraq Was Different From Clinton’s

The Bush administration’s talking point these days in defending its use of false pre-war intelligence is to blame Clinton. Scott McClellan said last week that critics “might want to start with looking at the previous administration.” Sen. George Allen (R-VA) repeated the mantra on CNN this Sunday: “ecognize that even the Clinton administration thought Saddam posed a threat.” And Bill Kristol writes in the Weekly Standard that the White House should “fight back” by pointing out that Clinton administration officials “believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.”

To justify the war against Iraq, the Bush administration made a number of exaggerated and misleading claims about the Iraqi threat that went far beyond the public statements issued by the Clinton administration. Going beyond the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration made a unique case on two specific fronts to justify the war: the supposed connections to al Qaeda and the Iraqi nuclear threat.

The administration argued that the evidence in these two areas amounted to a “grave and gathering threat” in a “post-September 11th world.” On the eve of the Iraq war, Bush said:

The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. ........

[Arkansas Granny]

1. I find it just hilarious that after all the Clinton-bashing that went on

by the Republicans, that now they are using him as a reference to justify Bush's actions. Do they not see the hypocrisy in that?

[BlueManDude]

6. They can't have it both ways

On one hand the Dems are weak appeasers - on the other hand they would have done the same thing that Mr. Tough Guy Cowboy did. Which is it?

[LSparkle]

2. Clinton: Use entire arsenal to get Iraqis to kick out Saddam

Bush: Use military force alone (forget diplomacy and other pressure) and occupy Iraq.

Not the same thing at all. Shameless lies.

[melissinha]

4. good answer "Clinton: Appropriate Action"

Clinton took the APPROPRIATE ACTIONS whereas BushCO fabricated intelligence started a preemptive war while UN weapons inspectors where saying previous efforts had reduced his stockpiles to nothing.

[melissinha]

3. difference between "thought" and "acting upon"

They didn't have the evidence and it wasn't worth it. Period.

The UN was not convinced, and neither were France or Germany.

[Neil Lisst]

5. Clinton didn't lie about the intel, or hide intel that didn't support war

It's not what people believed, it's what they did with the info they had, and whether or not that was reasonable.

No one but Bush and his inner circle is to blame for this. They conspired to create phony data to support the war they wanted to start. They conspired to spread outright lies, worse than LBJ ever did, and carried out that criminal conspiracy.