Heres some humor for today. heehee

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Stephanie, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton: Margaret Carlson
    Nov. 10 (Bloomberg.com -- The current U.S. president and his immediate predecessor are an odder couple than the one on Broadway.

    George W. Bush links with, and delinks from, Bill Clinton at will. While he often uses him as a benchmark for what a president shouldn't be, Bush also pulls Clinton out of the closet to clean up messes, sometimes in the company of his father, Bush I. Recently, Bush sent presidents 41 and 42 off to deal with the aftermath of Katrina.

    Bush's latest and most curious use of Clinton is to cite his words as proof of the administration's reasonableness in going to war. This comes just as the Senate is being forced into hearings on the possible unreasonableness of the intelligence Bush relied on for doing so.

    The White House puts out talking points citing Clinton's conviction that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he was a menace in the region. If Clinton believed it, why shouldn't the Bush administration?

    The Difference

    It's a hard charge to answer because Clinton did say what Bush says he said. But the argument misses one big fact: Clinton signed off on a speech, not on a war; he agreed on the problem, not the solution.

    Clinton was a president who demanded every available fact before proposing as much as uniforms in public schools. The certainty about the danger from Saddam that made it necessary for Clinton to rattle his saber at the dictator, as he did many times, is different from the certainty required to invade a sovereign country.

    Clinton had many flaws, but he wouldn't have ginned up intelligence to support a preconceived notion, nor suppress intelligence that didn't. In the Bush administration there was a cabal just for that.

    Colorfully described by Larry Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, there were the neocons with their fantasies of spreading democracy, Dick Cheney with his Darth Vader post-9/11 desire to hit someone and his insistence that Saddam was tied to al-Qaeda, and Donald Rumsfeld with his streamlined, agile army that could whup anyone and sustain few casualties.

    Pentagon Rogues

    For conjuring up the intelligence the CIA couldn't or wouldn't produce, there was a whole rogue operation out of the Pentagon. These folks amplified the scary stuff and ditched the rest. They gave God-like credence to an Iraqi defector who said what they wanted, and then fed his stuff directly onto the front page of the New York Times.

    Administration officials would then cite the front page of the New York Times in supporting their assertion about Saddam's capabilities, and voila, they had their slam-dunk case.

    Usually a cabal doesn't have the official leader in it. Of course, this one did. Bush loved his cabal. The one leader left out of the loop was Secretary of State Colin Powell, who never had a chance of getting the true picture. By the time Powell went to CIA headquarters to prepare his speech to the UN, Cheney had been there multiple times to scrub the data.

    Clinton would never treat fresh facts with indifference. When weapons inspectors couldn't find weapons, Bush concluded that Saddam was a genius at hiding them, not that he should adjust his thinking to accommodate the findings, or at least wait to see if any weapons turned up.

    Ignoring Condi, Sometimes

    Bush blocks out info he doesn't want to hear. White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett had to force-feed him tapes of the nightly news to show how desperate the situation in New Orleans was after Katrina. Bush preferred Brownie's take.

    A month before Sept. 11, Bush ignored Condoleezza Rice when she brought him a briefing book that said terrorists were plotting an imminent strike. (Yet he hung on her every word when she said that ``the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.'') He never questioned, although other analysts did, her assertion that Saddam was importing high-quality aluminum tubes suited only for nuclear weapons centrifuge programs.

    This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to say that with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what Bush did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.

    If Only

    Indeed, if he had gotten the Condi intelligence warning that Osama was poised to attack, we don't know what Clinton would have done. We do know there would have been all-nighters to assess it.

    Bush was so convinced that Rumsfeld's army would make quick work of Iraq he never thought he would end up being so desperate he had to quote Clinton to answer critics.

    Rather than cite Clinton for the wrong proposition, he should recall what Clinton and his father actually did about Iraq. Both Bush I and Clinton knew enough to fear a post-Saddam Iraq, riven by civil war, and a post-Saddam America stuck in a country we can't govern and can't get out of.

    If only Bush II had listened.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    The Link
     
  3. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    You gotta love it when these columnists get to publish criticisms without anyone to challenge teh fallicity of what they are saying.

    Uh, she points out one major difference, CLINTON on SAID Saddam was a menace,,,while Bush actually went to war about it. EXACTLY!

    Uh, and one other minor difference, 9/11.......

    what a freaking Bush hating moron that lady must be.
     
  4. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    That's pretty much the status quo lately. The claim that President Bush mislead us to war is made. It is pointed out that not only Clinton but Kerry, Gore, and a few others were saying the same thing about Iraq up to three years before Bush took office. The answer I was given was recently was, "Yeah, but there is a difference between saying it and acting on it."

    Ok, so does this mean Bush DIDN'T mislead us, but dared to act rather than just talk big? Or does it mean Clinton was misleading us, but all he wanted to do was mislead us into listening to him?

    It should also be pointed out that there are still people screaming about "rushing to war", when the fact of the matter is this was the longest build up to war in our history.
     
  5. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Is Carlson being serious here? We don't know what Clinton would have done? Al Qaeda attacked Americans and American property during Clinton's administration. HE DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. As a result, we got 9/11/21, and afterwards Clinton was on cable TV talk shows half-ass apologizing for not acting on the intelligence his administration had about Al Qaeda.
     
  6. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    Not to mention, it became Adminstration policy for REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ in '98
     

Share This Page