Today’s con tactic is to use video of President Clinton ordering missile strikes on Iraq that destroyed much of Hussein’s WMD capacity in order to justify George Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq that has killed 2,000 more soldiers than President Clinton’s missile strikes…. that destroyed many of the WMDs that Saddam ever had. I will never understand these people, they’re just too silly.
» Breaking News
Labor Leader Warns About Rabid McCain-Palin Crowds
Abbey Brooks: Breaking Beauty
Claim: Tony Gonzalez Requesting Trade To NY Giants
Jose Canseco Busted At Border With Fertility Drug
Cheney convinced Bush that he could send in the troops to take out Saddam and it would be easy. No one in their wildest imagination thought we would lose 2000 men and women. They should have taken a lesson from Clinton and could have taken out Saddam with one missile. But then Halliburton would not have all those no-bid contracts and the price of oil would not have been affected.
Uh huh. Bill Clinton was such a genius that the military under his command could hit targets with just one missile. And now because Bush is in office, the military can’t hit targets with the unerring accuracy of Bill Clinton.
After all, Bill Clinton’s missles took out Osama in Afghanistan, didn’t they? And Bill Clinton’s missiles didn’t accidently hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, did they?
Bush should come clean and admit that Clinton presided over Saddam’s disarmament.
Crap on that! There were all sorts of scaremonger predictions (10K dead, 20K wounded from chemical/biological attack, 100,000 refugees). NONE of which came true.
Not according to the Duelfer Report.
Clinton took office in 1993.
Iraq had no WMD production since 1991.
There was no proof of any biological weapons stocks since 1991.
Iraq’s nuclear program was terminated in 1991.
Clinton attacked Iraq anyway.
Sadly, Oliver, this works. A mailing of about 15 former coworkers, all college educated engineers has at least three, maybe four rabid bush lovers, clinton haters.
When I pointed out David Kay’s statements, reported in Slate, stating just this, that the Clinton Air Strikes destroyed the remaining facilities, their sole response was that Fred Kaplan and Slate is biased MSM.
My father fought in WWII, my grandparents were Russian Jews, I grew up in the seventies thinking very evil thoughts about Germany and all Germans. And these days, all I can say is that I have a much better understanding of what happened in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Scary and sad.
JWG,
100% correct.
SaveFerris,
Are you kidding? Check out Iraq Body Count. There have now been 26,000-30,000 CONFIRMED Iraqi civilian deaths since the March 2003 invasion. And you don’t think there’s been a refugee crisis? Where have all the Fallujans gone? Or the educated Iraqis who don’t want to be murdered by jihadis and Shi’ite theocrats? Or the Shi’ites in Sunni territory or the Arabs (mostly Shi’ite) around Kirkuk? Iraq is facing a HUGE refugee crisis. And as for the chem/bio attack, I wonder how many were killed by the illegal use of white phosphorous in Fallujah?
I also don’t understand the spin that “Bush had the same intelligence as Clinton”. 3/2003 - 12/2002. Four years. Two years of a Bush Administration. 18 Months past 9/11. More UN inspections. Forced inspection regimes.
Why didn’t Bush have better intelligence?
If Bush was using the same intelligence as Clinton, isn’t this another mark of Buschimpskitler’s incompetence?
on Iraq that destroyed much of Hussein s WMD capacity
It’s funny that YOU know this when Clinton himself said he didn’t know how effective the strikes were.
“that destroyed many of the WMDs that Saddam ever had”
The Desert Fox strikes puposefully avoided WMD targets and focused on delivery systems only.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/conversino.html
Jeez, how many times are you going to trot out this crap argument that is so easily debunked by the very men who carried out the mission?
Randy,
For an “articulate” guy, Oliver isn’t very bright.
ASSERTION: In his speech, Bush noted that “more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”
CONTEXT: This isn’t true.
The Congress didn’t have access to the President’s Daily Brief, a top-secret compendium of intelligence on the most pressing national security issues that was sent to the president every morning by former CIA Director George Tenet.
As for prewar intelligence on Iraq, senior administration officials had access to other information and sources that weren’t available to lawmakers.
Cheney and his aides visited the CIA and other intelligence agencies to view raw intelligence reports, received briefings and engaged in highly unusual give-and-take sessions with analysts.
Moreover, officials in the White House and the Pentagon received information directly from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group, circumventing U.S. intelligence agencies, which greatly distrusted the organization.
Well, as stated by so many people…the intelligence community throughout the 90’s and into 2003 believed he still had the WMD. They were wrong.
Considering the use of WP as a weapon against troops is not illegal for the US, I don’t care.
I do care if civilians were killed by WP. However, that has yet to be demonstrated.
And as for the chem/bio attack, I wonder how many were killed by the illegal use of white phosphorous in Fallujah?
First, it wasnt either chem/or bio attack.
Second, it wasn’t illegal.
And Third, a lot fewer killed by WP than by HE. Should we now ban HE?
JWG says:
Not according to the Duelfer Report.
Clinton took office in 1993.
Iraq had no WMD production since 1991.
There was no proof of any biological weapons stocks since 1991.
Iraq s nuclear program was terminated in 1991.
Clinton attacked Iraq anyway.
OK, JustWankingGuy:
How can you even begin to justify WBush’s INVASION in 2003? And his loss of 2050 [and counting] troops? And the cost of I forget how many 100s of billions [and counting] of dolloars? Because Clinton fired a missle?
Oliver says:
You talk a good game, however you do not provide any proof to base your DNC talking point on. It is widely known and reported that Clinton struck a factory that turned out not to be building WMD’s and this strike occured at night when probably the only person there was the janitor.
Pop Quiz:
1. In Oct 2002, how many Democrats (in both House and Senate) voted to give Bush Jr the authority to use military action against Iraq?
2. And how many Democrats (in both House and Senate) voted not to give Bush authority to use military action against Iraq?
Pop Quiz:
1. Which United States Senator provided Bashar Assad with an analysis of American War Strategy in 2002?
2. How many of you moonbats want to try and spin it?
Translation: Jay Rockefeller told Assad that “I think George Bush has already made up his mind to invade Iraq.”
Thus, Captain Cubicle and Jay Tea and the rest of the brain trust once again find traitors afoot.
There is a project underway in Doha, Qatar where several intelligence analysts, together with several dozen translators, most of them from Jordan, are sifting through millions of pages of documents unearthed in Iraq after the toppling of the regime -
Here are some of the titles:
1. Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Correspondence to Iraq Embassy in the Philippines and Iraq MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
2. Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
3. IIS report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims
4. Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan
5. IIS Agent in Bulgaria
6. Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda–reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak
7. IIS report about the relationship between IIS and the Kurdish Group Jalal Talibani [sic]
8. Iraqi Mukhabarat Structure
9. Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
10. Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
11. Order from Saddam to present $25,000 to Palestinian Suicide Bombers Families
12. IIS reports from Embassy in Paris: Plan to Influence French Stance on U.N. Security Council
13. IIS Importing and Hiding High Tech Computers in Violation of UN
14. IIS request to move persons, documents to private residences
15. Formulas and information about Iraq’s Chemical Weapons Agents
16. Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
17. 1987 orders by Hussein to use chemical weapons in the Ealisan Basin
18. Ricin research and improvement
19. Personnel file of Saad Mohammad Abd Hammadi al Deliemi
20. Memo from the Arab Liaison Committee: With a list of personnel in need of official documents
21. Fedayeen Saddam Responds to IIS regarding rumors of citizens aiding Afghanistan
22. Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
23. Improvised Explosive Devices Plan
24. IIS reports on How French Campaigns are Financed
25. French and German relationships with Iraq
26. IIS reports about Russian Companies–News articles and potential IIS agents
27. IIS plan for 2000 of Europe’s Influence of Iraq Strategy
28. IIS plans to infiltrate countries and collect information to help remove sanctions
29. Correspondence from IIS and the stations in Europe
30. Contract for satellite pictures between Russia, France and Iraq: Pictures of Neighboring Countries (Dec. 2002)
31. Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam
32. Memo from the IIS to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
33. Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)
34. Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
35. Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
36. Correspondence from IIS to MIC regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002)
37. Correspondence from IIS to Iraqi Embassy in Malaysia
38. Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
39. IIS plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)
40. Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)
“The Iraqi document revealed that a Sudanese government official met with Uday Hussein and the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in 1994 and reported that bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan. Bin Laden, according to the Iraqi document, was then “approached by our side” after “presidential approval” for the liaison was given. The former head of Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with bin Laden on February 19, 1995. The document further states that bin Laden “had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative”–a comment that suggests the possibility had been discussed. (According to another Iraqi Intelligence document, authenticated by the DIA and first reported on 60 Minutes, the regime considered bin Laden an “Iraqi Intelligence asset” as early as 1992, though it’s unclear that bin Laden shared this view.)”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/345qrbbj.asp?pg=2
Crap on that! There were all sorts of scaremonger predictions (10K dead, 20K wounded from chemical/biological attack, 100,000 refugees). NONE of which came true.
Just like the predictions of a greeting with flowers and candy, piles of WMD, mushroom clouds, yellowcake, aluminum tubes, Winnebagos of Mass Destruction, flying biological weapons drones, links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, fully equipped U.S. armed forces (armor), an end to major combat operations, mission accomplished, a sufficient number of battle ready Iraqi battalions…and so on.
So I know how you feel. Although it’s a tad sociopathic to think your support of the war is somehow justified now that a ‘less than predicted number’ of people were killed. But whatever helps you sleep at night.
It was, simply, the wrong thing to do.
Jebus, I knew Bill was bad, but this is the first time I’ve seen Microsoft (IIS) explicitly linked to Saddam Hussein. What a bastard.
Quaker:
“Translation: Jay Rockefeller told Assad that I think George Bush has already made up his mind to invade Iraq. ”
And this is OK with you? What business did he have saying ANYTHING whatsoever (other than “you’re next”) to Bashar Assad? And you wonder why people question your patriotism?
Here’s a little information you seem to need, zorro. United States Senators very frequently speak to heads of state in other nations. They often express opinions on the news of the day.
During the time in question, George Bush was making rather transparent threats to invade Iraq. Jay Rockefeller did nothing out of the ordinary in answering a question about it.
Now if Rockefeller had inside knowledge of specific war plans and revealed them, he might have a problem. However, that his comment on publicly available information represents “treason” is a wingnut fantasy of the first order.
No, I don’t. I am well aware of the reasons. They have to do with a lack of imagination on the part of the questioner.
Someone also said this on national TV, coincidentally, in January 2002:
Of course, none of this would give anyone any reason to think an invasion was in the works, would it?
Quaker:
I was directing the c omment to you, but don’t you think it a tad presumptuous to tell me what I need? You can tell me anything you want out of the goodness of your heart; but you can’t divine my needs from the contents of a post. Semantics, I know, but…
Your logic eludes me on why you think Rockefeller’s cofession isn’t important. By your logic, if you were to strangle Ruch Limbaugh and eat his liver with a nice Chianti and some Fava beans it wouldn’t be a crime unless the major news networks covered it?
Quaker,
First of all I don’t NEED anything from you.
Secondly, if Rockefeller was just some schmoe freshman congressman who wanted to talk to Assad (ruler of a terrorist sponsoring nation and Baathist brother to Saddam Hussein) about the weather, that’s hunky dory. But Rockefeller is the ranking minority member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and (I’m sure you will stipulate) would be one of the people in the know about this type of thing. The fact that he was whispering in the ear of Assad ANYTHING other than “hey, nice harem you have there Bashar” “might” be a “problem” as you put it. You want to hang someone like Scooter Libby from the nearest yardarm but seem to be somewhat mute in your condemnation of Rockefeller. Smacks of hypocrisy to me. To top it off, Rockefeller admitted it on national TV!
Pardon me. I thought you were directing a comment to me personally. I noticed that your c omment seemed to lack important context. I helpfully offered to provide it. My mistake. Feel free to remain as you were.
And yet, no one other than the proprietors of a few extreme right-wing websites seem at all concerned. No prosecutors. No ethics committees. Why do you think that is?
Network news coverage isn’t the question. It’s whether or not anyone other than a few shouters seems to think it’s noteworthy. Rockefeller’s mention of his trip to Syria in January 2002 doesn’t seem to have kicked off any investigations, raised any eyebrows at the State Department, or gained any interest from the Justice Department.
So don’t you think all the hollering about “treason” is just a bunch of partisan hyperventilating?
You might also recall that Syria was a coalition ally in the first Gulf War, along with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Region countries. In a 2003 story, Time magazine noted that Washington was putting feelers out to potential allies as early as late 2001. Would a Democratic senator on the intelligence committee be involved in that? I have no clue, and I’ll wager that Captain Cubicle has no idea either.
What seems to have everyone’s pants in a twist is that Rockefeller went on TV to take a shot at George Bush’s war decisions. Now Bush partisans once again avoid the substance of the remarks and choose to tar the source of those remarks with accusations of treason.