Too bad they didn't listen to Clinton when he said terrorism was the main threat against the United States when they debriefed the Bushies... This whole Clinton is to blame for everything is pathetic. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ons_lat,1,938538.story?coll=la-home-headlines Iraq Arms Assessment Defended Douglas Feith's effort to respond to the questions underscored the extent to which the failure to find banned weapons has become a potential political embarrassment for Bush. By James Gerstenzang, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- A senior Pentagon official today defended the Bush administration's concerns about Iraq's prewar arsenal and said its fears grew out of reports, originally produced during the Clinton administration, warning that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Facing accusations that the Pentagon had exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq, the senior aide said President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and Defense Secretary William Cohen had each raised concerns about the Iraqi arsenal in the late 1990s. Leading up to the war, the administration maintained that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to produce nuclear arms. "It's pretty clear that the intelligence community's judgments concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction did not undergo a major change between the Clinton and the Bush administrations," Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith told reporters at the Pentagon this morning. Questions have been raised about whether the administration's reported intelligence on Iraq was flawed and possibly exaggerated to build support for the war. Feith's effort to respond to the questions underscored the extent to which the failure to find banned weapons has become a potential political embarrassment for Bush. It also reflected the degree to which intelligence and other agencies are moving to protect themselves as they anticipate inquiries from Congress and criticism here and abroad. Feith also said a controversial intelligence unit that operated outside normal government intelligence channels played no role in assessing whether Iraq still had biological or chemical weapons. "There have been some people who have kind of concocted a goulash of snippets about this team that was working on the terrorist interconnections and the Special Plans Office [in the Pentagon], and they mixed them up when there's no basis for the mix," he said, according to a transcript of his remarks. His remarks were part of an effort to refute critics who have sought to portray the Pentagon intelligence operation as part of a concerted effort to find connections between Iraq, the Al Qaeda terrorist network and weapons of mass destruction as it sought to build a case for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein. Feith said the intelligence team deployed two employees full time, and no more than three others part time, for a temporary intelligence project on terrorism. The project has been completed, he said. Initial reports of the in-house intelligence work prompted suggestions -- which Feith denied -- that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was creating an intelligence unit to compete with the CIA. Its role, he said, was no more than "digesting other people's intelligence products." While questions regarding the extent of an Iraqi weapons program have surfaced in Washington, they have grown to much greater proportions in Britain, and have become a major headache for Prime Minster Tony Blair, President Bush's most reliable supporter overseas. A parliamentary inquiry was announced in London to look into whether Blair's government exaggerated weapons evidence, news agencies reported. "The truth is nobody believes a word now that the prime minister is saying," Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith said above the jeers of Blair's supporters, the Associated Press reported. Meanwhile in Washington, Feith argued that the administration's case, advanced at the United Nations in February by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, was built on tapes of Iraqis discussing the concealing of weapons of mass destruction from U.N. inspectors, and on reports by witnesses and informants. In addition, he said, the judgments were based on reports "that not only went back years but predated this administration." "In February, 1998, President Clinton said, 'Iraq continues to conceal chemical and biological weapons and the missiles that can deliver them, and Iraq has the capacity to quickly restart production of these weapons,' " Feith said.
Perhaps I should have said, current adminstration says WMD intel on Iraq originated during Clinton administration and was repeated by officials in Clinton adminstration?
First of all...this is the Pentagon...is that the administration?? Second of all...there's not a hint of blame in these statements. It simply acknowledges the following: "In February, 1998, President Clinton said, 'Iraq continues to conceal chemical and biological weapons and the missiles that can deliver them, and Iraq has the capacity to quickly restart production of these weapons,' " Feith said. Clinton did say those things. Clinton did tell us Iraq was a threat. He was acting on intelligence provided him. They were using the phrase, "regime change" in the Clinton administration. That's one of the reasons why I find this whole, "Bush lied," argument so silly. The Clinton administration was speaking equally as forceful about this.
those statements are correct...some time ago I posted a long speech that Clinton gave bemoaning the weapons capabilities of Iraq and the potential threat to the United States... here are some points from that address to the nation: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.... The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.... So Iraq has abused its final chance.... If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.... The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future...
I think the point is not that Clinton was wrong, but that Clinton also believed the same thing about Iraq and WMD's. In other words, Bush didn't make it up. He is using the same intelligence Clinton used.
Sandy Berger said he was flat out ignored by the Bush transition team regarding the terrorist threat to our country. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/editorial/documents/02278304.htm
OK, I can agree with that, plus they had three more years to collect data ( and apparently we had people deep in country picking targets during the war, among other things. ) Hard to fathom how if we have people close enough to see Saddam, that our other sources in country get the WMD ready to use item so wrong.
This double checks with what Sydney Blumenthal is saying on his book tour for Clinton Wars. I think the problem there was the Bushies were overwhelmingly concerned with being the anti-Clintons that anything Clinton worked on was seen as poisoned, i.e. working on Middle East peace process, international involvement, fighting terrorism.
And they were a new administration learning the ropes...I know they had some serious veterans in the wings, but this (terrorist attacks/war) all happened very fast. The real failure is with the CIA and especially the FBI, but the bottom line is Bush should have listened to the warnings provided by the Clinton administration.
ok...so what if you're right? what if this did happen? what if he ignored certain warnings? or didn't emphasize them enough? what would be different? do you think 9/11 wouldn't have happened?? really??? it was roughly 9 months into his presidency...what dramatic effect could he have had that would have prevented that?
No, I believe 9/11 was much bigger than anyone could imagine, except for the terrorists who pulled it off. Why won't Bush release information crucial to the 9/11 investigation? That is an important question that has yet to be answered.
i don't know the answer to that question... but i agree with your analysis on 9/11...which leads me back to the question...even if bush ignored what the clinton adminstration said...how would the world be different today if he hadn't?
It really is a strange thing to think about...a few warnings from field agents are taken seriously, airport security is tightened a little bit... The world really would be different, definitely a major moment in all of human history in my opinion.
i don't understand..i thought you just said you thought 9/11 was too big for anyone to imagine? that it wouldn't have been prevented??
That comment was just a what if... somehow 9/11 is prevented and our world would be alot different. I guess I was just trying to picture how different things would be if a "miracle" had happened and the 9/11 terrorist ring was broken up before they did what they did. I'm definetly not saying it could have been prevented, I don't think anyone could say that with a straight face. I also don't believe anyone can listen to FBI's excuses and believe they couldn't have done more by simply listening to their field agents. Sometimes its hard to quickly type up my thoughts and get everything straight without sounding hypocritical. KC
