Originally posted by GreenVegan76 I don't care who said it -- countless Democrats said we should attack, too. That doesn't make it right. I'm just as pissed at Kerry and Edwards for swallowing Bush's load of crap without question. ... No. The point is not just that Clinton's team were Democrats, but that they were privy to the same entelligence that Bush's team was, and they felt the same. Thus, it's not a load of crap.
They were privy to the same intel, but they didn't feel the same. They didn't invade Iraq. They decided to keep the pressure on and keep Iraq sealed tight. They may have also placed too much faith in the WMD intel and been wrong about that, but they didn't feel it was worthy of invading the country. Saying this reminds me of the former weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He tried to claim that there were no WMD in Iraq, and people called him a traitor. Maybe in the end he had the courage to defy the hype, and stand up for the reality. It may still be soon to tell, but I'm rethinking my negative opinion Ritter.
I have no issue with your explanation of imminence. I picked out that statement when I saw the SOU. My issue is that they hyped the WMD claims and are now trying to claim that humanitarian issues alone were enough to justify this war. They misled the public with "intelligence" they knew to be bogus and now they expect us to just shut up about it. I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WAS DUPED. I BELIEVED THEM WHEN THEY MADE THEIR CLAIMS AND I AM PISSED ABOUT IT! Even the most die hard Democrats KNEW that Clinton was lying through his teeth when he went on TV that night. It is amazing to me that you cannot see past your party long enough to acknowledge the truth.
FB, circumstances changed a tad after the Clinton presidency, eh? Like in 2001? And they DID all speak out in agreement with the War (at least early on); that Iraq was a threat. Albright always questioned the timing and I believe they all (at least later) criticized Bush for his failings in International Politics.
So a lot of the Clinton folks were wrong, too. Good to see Dean and Gore and some starting to admit it. What excuse is there for defending a mistake once it has been shown? Saying "well others thought so, too, is satisfying, but it is best to just admit the error and try to learn from it. I guess it just shows that you should trust the judgment of those on the Left like me who always maintained that it was all bs and Iraq wasn't a threat. Where was the love of the Iraqi people now professed by the pro war crowd, when the US killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids with sanctions while we tried to oust Sadam? Again is there some limit to the number of Iraqis that the US kills to liberate them? Just war theory requires that the evil sought to be prevented is worth the cost. How do you justify that our two wars together, killed more Iraqis than even Sadam Hussein managed to kill? This analysis does not allow one to just say well Sadam was at fault, too. The cost of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis exceeded the evil to be prevented. This is why with near unamimity the world's moral scholars and religious leaders proclaimed this war unjust before it was waged . Does that overwhelming majority make them right? Not necessarily, but it is undeniable that they were in the overwhelming majority and the facts on the ground so far have proven them right in hindsight.
glynch, isn't it likely that if you had been part of the Clinton Administration and had access to their intel that you might just as they did see a justification for concern? OR If you had been a member of the Bush Administration (I know it's a stretch... ) and had access to their intel that you might just as they did see a justification for concern... and maybe even supported action post 9/11? It cracks me up that people whose "opinion" based only on the news they can gather can feel superior about their judgement on a matter based on mountains of intel-- most of which does not make it into the news-- even when their "opinion" turns out to be substantially right. Ever hear of The Iceberg Principle?
Of course they changed, that is why we had unprecedented worldwide support for going in and taking out the Taliban. No other time in history has seen the US with as much support as we had during that conflict. Most people that spoke out and called Iraq a threat were going on the "intelligence" that the administration said was accurate. They continued to claim that they couldn't actually show us the data in the interest of national security. They asked us to trust them, which many including myself did. I had never really considered that they might actually use "intelligence" that they knew to be inaccurate for the purposes of making a case for war. They broke my trust and now will have to be uber-accurate and hyper-forthcoming in order to get that trust back. I stopped trusting Clinton after he lied to my face (through the camera) and now I have stopped trusting this administration for the same reason.
The iceburg principle might come into play if the administration hadn't used faulty, inaccurate, or just flat made up information to show the proverbial tip. They tried to claim that Iraq was an iceburg and it turns out they were an ice tray (that wasn't even frozen due to the lack of electricity).
Originally posted by andymoon Of course they changed, that is why we had unprecedented worldwide support for going in and taking out the Taliban. No other time in history has seen the US with as much support as we had during that conflict. FB mentioned that Clinton's team did not invade, I responded that cicumstances had changed WRT the approach an administration would take. That was the scope. Most people that spoke out and called Iraq a threat were going on the "intelligence" that the administration said was accurate. ... But not THESE people. These folks were privy to the same classified information that Bush's team was. They saw it firsthand and could assess it as they saw it themselves. They needed no intermediaries. And they came to the same conclusion.
And I responded that circumstances had changed, but that Bush squandered the good will and cooperation he had after the circumstances changed. We had worldwide support after 9/11 and that support has since been thrown out like a baby with the bath water. Circumstances changed, but they did not change enough to justify a unilateral war over the protests of the rest of the world, especially now that it turns out that the information used to convince the public to support the war was false. What they weren't privy to, however, were the reports that already existed that debunked the administration's claims. I don't really care if Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean supported the war, what I care about is that the administration used bad "intelligence" claims to support the case that they made to ME for war. They misled me and as far as I am concerned, they lied to me just like Clinton did.
I agree that it is a must have, but my wife will be having our son over the next couple of weeks so I don't think even Santa will be riding to the rescue on this one. That's OK, I have Netflix and I may even be getting back the DVDs that were stolen from me a couple of months ago. Those included Life of Brian and Meaning of Life.
Yes circumstances did change. That's why instead of just special ops going in after OBL like Clinton's team had advised even prior to 9/11 the full scale invasion of Afghanistan was warranted. However little changed in regards to Iraq after 2001, except that it would be prudent to keep a stronger eye on them, have inspectors with armed back up, and threat of removal to the Hussein regime. Because 9/11 happened doesn't mean it's time to invade the middle eastern country of our choosing. Especially to have an invasion when the country that trained the terrorists and hosted the terrorist group that formed the plan is still not secure. Even after 9/11 when the Bush Whitehouse presented their map and list of countries in which Al Qaeda was involved in, Iraq was not on that list. Those assertions were only made later after the march toward war had already begun. You are right that things changed after 9/11. At that time it became more important than ever to work with allies to share intel, to make sure that they were serious about fighting terrorism in cooperation with the U.S. Bush failed at accomplishing that. His handling of Iraq is one of the main reasons why.
"if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it." sounds like he accepts the necessity of removing Sadaam for violating UN sactions? at what point would he believe that enough is enough? another 12 years when it would be some other president's headache? when our nation's security is at stake, i'm glad we don't have a president who would pass the buck to future generations. he also recogized, like Bush, that the threat was not "immediate" which i think we can accept as a synonym for "imminent." the difference, is the Bush, in light of what happened on 9/11, believed that we could not wait for the threat to fully manifest itself. i share that view.
