Clinton: Bush Iraq Mistake Understandable

[Khephra]

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's erroneous reference to an Iraqi-Africa uranium link was understandable, former President Clinton said Tuesday, in part because Saddam Hussein's regime had not accounted for some weapons by the time Clinton ended his term in 2001.

Clinton's comments reinforce one of the pillars of Bush's defense of the war in Iraq -- that his Democratic predecessor was never satisfied that Saddam had rid himself of weapons of mass destruction.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for," Clinton said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it," he said.

snip.........



"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," he said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now."

Clinton said ending tensions in Iraq should be the priority now -- another echo of the current White House's talking points. "We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq."

more...................

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-clinton-iraq,0,6425221.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Here's the full transcript:


CNN LARRY KING LIVE

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html

[Khephra]

1. I was never a Clinton groupie, but I still supported him.

I was never a Clinton groupie, but I still supported him.

That's over now. I wash my hands of him.

We're going to be hearing about Clinton defending Bush all week now.

I'm sorry, but Fuck Him in this case. He screwed up BIG TIME here.

:grr:

[are_we_united_yet]

2. I can only think

that democrats think the people hate clinton so much that they asked clinton to support W to bring his numbers down.

[dArKeR]

168. Or Bush paid Clinton a political bribe for Hillary. This just makes me

sick and I'll never say a good thing about Clinton again! Honestly! Just when we start finding out, mass media, how evil the GOP are, Clinton trys to cover it up.

Don't forget, Hastert, just 2 days before blamed Clinton for almost all the problems in the U.S. and the world. (on Me The Press.) All the Democrats finally started unifying and getting a spine and now Clinton sabotages it. Maybe Clinton is the asshole all the rigtht-wing groups say he is. Or politics is much dirtier than I've ever imagined. Clinton taking political IOUs from Bush! It's got to be for support for Hillary to run for President?

Clinton, sucking on Satan's horn!

http://darkerxdarker.tripod.com/

Dr. D.

[hang a left]

5. You know Bill is very

politically savvy and he has his reasons for tempering his comments. I like the fact that he is focused on our boys and girls right now. If I could have a conversation with any one about Iraqgate it would be Bill. I would love to be a fly on the wall and listen to what he really has to say. Love ya Bill, just love ya.

[Khephra]

7. See post number 4

below

[PartyPooper]

10. Yep. We'll never hear the end of this!

Not only does he defend Bush...but, it was all Clinton's fault, too. He even said so!

Do you think he did this to stop the Dems in 2004...and to "help" Hillary in 2008? I know this sounds cynical, but, this strategy has been suggested before on DU.

:puke:

[study_war_no_more]

56. I think Washington is a cesspool

And Clinton and the DLC are fat rats swimming in it. Dennis K is the only man with integrity enough to get my vote.

[benfranklin1776]

79. Agreed it was a grade a nausea inducing kissing of Don Georgios ring.

He essentially said: "May I have another one please Mr. Bush. Thank you very much for all that your right wing goon supporters have done for me by refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of my election and starting a constitution shredding witch hunt that made the lives of mny family and my supporters a living hell for eight years as well as wresting control of Congress by the use of lies and distortions and a barrage of hateful right wing invective that would have made Goebbels beam with pride and thwarting many of my proposed legislative initiatives such as universal health care which would have helped the lives of millions." Its repaying a vicious kick in the teeth with an undeserved pat on the back. The attempted "exoneration" of Junior, such that it is, rings false on its face. The issue of whether Hussein attempted to procure uranium from Niger had nothing at all to do with whether he supposedly failed to fully disclose all of the chemical and biological weapons by the time Clinton ended his term in 2001. That supposed nondisclosure in no way justifed a blatant, willful lie on an unrelated matter. First Blair now him. You wonder what the hell is really going on here. Its like watching a bad remake of invasion of the body snatchers.

[Wonder]

83. when push comes to shove

can't tell one from the other... they are all on the same page. why in the world would clinton step up with comments like that to help white wash this thing? He makes me sick. Who has him by the family jewels this time?

[deutsey]

104. Perfect example of why I no longer consider myself a Democrat

Although I'm volunteering for Dean I do not consider myself a Democrat anymore. The so-called leaders of this party have stabbed us in the back, left us twisting in the wind, sold us down the river, FILL IN CLICHE HERE...too many times for me to keep coming back like a battered wife hoping her loser husband has finally mended his ways.

The more I think about, the more I think maybe Dean (or anyone with backbone) doesn't have a fucking snowball's chance in hell to be president in this vapid moral wasteland. Even if a fighter somehow got elected, the schmuck would be held down by the Dems while the GOP flayed them into irrelevance. Or the Dems would look the other way while a "lone gunman" neutralizes the troublemaker.

[RapidCreek]

108. You and me both Deutsy! You and me both....

RC

[CWebster]

111. Nah

Some of those house Dems are itching for a fight. They're chomping at the bit to let the dogs out.

[deutsey]

135. Oh, I know there are some

The problem is, there aren't enough.

[CWebster]

137. The problem is there is a leadership vacuum

It's still Clinton's party and he and his won't let go of the reins. He can't be effective because he is incapacitated by his own history, but he can't risk new Democratic input from changing his status by comparison.

The Clintons' fingers have to be pried off the party. kerry will only carry the torch.

[HFishbine]

139. One of many reasons

I too am a former democrat volunteering for Dean. Switched my registration to unafiliated two years ago (which will still allow me to vote in the dem primary in my state).

My reasons for doing so are similar to yours. In too many ways, from coroporate coddling to support for an unjustified war, too many dems still fail to stand for sensible change and, instead, attempt to put a patina of difference on business as usual.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RapidCreek]

112. Well I guess the same way

Republicans made such a big deal about Clintons lies to a Grand Jury about getting his cock sucked.

Since you believe Clinton is right then I must conclude that your fellow Republicans were wrong to spend 86 million dollars on an independent investigation and his subsequent impeachment eh? By your own conclusions you have labeled yourself and your compatriots considerably more delusional, fudgy and dense than anyone on this board.

Thanks for reiterating the obvious. :hi:

RC

[RapidCreek]

107. Yea...guess this proves them greenies

are as evil as our blindly loyal dems suggest. Billy Boys revelation certainly dispells the myth of Republicrats.


RC

[saskatoon]

167. Clinton, Traitor

Like you I'm disgusted with Clinton. With friends like this, who needs enemies!

[w13rd0]

3. Clinton is just playing CYA...

...since he was fed the same bullshit by the PNAC crew. And when people f*k up like this, generally someone should LOSE THEIR JOB!!! How many times did the Clinton cabinet shuffle after members of his administration f'd up? Quite a few as I recall... that's a lot different then, "Wasn't my fault, it was his, but i still have the highest confidence that he's doing a darned good job, and i still trust all these advisors that have been knowingly feeding me crap." I'd ask what they have on Clinton, but why bother?

[Khephra]

4. There's ways to cya without giving the other guy ammo

And Bill is skilled enough to do that. I know he is. You know he is.

He went out of the way to excuse Bush. Screw him!

[indictrichardperle]

6. DLC Clinton sells out

that is sickening.

[GreenArrow]

129. Bill Clinton

sold out a long time ago. A l-oooooo-n-g time ago.

[maryallen]

143. Exactly ... Clinton's "nobility" rings FALSE.

His remarks p*ss me off.

Proof Bill (and Hil) is a bonified member of the DLC.

Proof Bill (and Hil) is Repub-lite.

Proof the "powers behind the 'throne'" are all in this together.

Just like his support for NAFTA.
Was that in the interest of the "little man/woman" or did it benefit big corporations?

Is giving Bush a pass on bogus reasons for going to war in the interest of the nation? of the Democratic party?
Only a fool would think so.

[ikojo]

155. Was irate when I heard Clinton defend the chimp

I was in a cab this morning when I heard the news report and voice over of Clinton saying that all presidents make mistakes.

A BJ in the oval office and an affair is a mistake...

Sending working-class young people to war (or anyone but we know which class fights the wars in this world) based upon a LIE is CRIMINAL!!!

Clinton is like an abused spouse who says...if only I do this maybe they will like me....Republicans, PLEASE like me..please, please.

He was a wimp as president when he backed down on his nominations anytime the pugs challenged him and he's a wimp as a former president.

The DLC and Democrats like Clinton is why people see little difference between the two parties...many working people say that both parties are the bosses parties.

[TankLV]

28. I won't say "screw him" - but I'm very, very, very disheartened.

Why give ANY help at all to these scumbags.

And people wonder why and ever-increasing number don't vote.

Way to throw a wrench into our fight to regain democracy.

I

just

don't

understand.

I

weep

a little, now.

[Tinoire]

51. I am sorry...

The writing about this was on the floor :( for the last 8 years. We were just slow to realize it.

NAFTA - GATT - WTO - Globalization - Trade wars with the rest of the world over GMOs

and regardless I still like Clinton but he was one hell of a slick salesman.

Sorry for the tears... I started shedding mine a while back when Hedda exposed the DLC PNAC AEI link so this isn't such a brutal shock. I really am sorry.

The key to this whole thing is the CFR- the Council of Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.

[study_war_no_more]

57. TY for pointing this out

Jobs have been going South for awhile now and Bill started the ball a rolling, I really don't care why he did it it was damaging to the democratic party and frigging selfish.

[Tinoire]

72. All part of the CFR's plan to a "New World Order"

That's what the last 15 years have been about- re-arranging geo-political borders and economic allegiances in prep for the
Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order)




(Notice the frightening resemblance to DARPA's logo)

[Wonder]

84. dead on straight

you took the words right out of my mouth BILDERBERG GROUP

the last thing any want to speak on. None Dare Call It A Conspiracy!!

[ProudGerman]

8. WTF????

Nobody is saying he made a mistake. People are saying he knowingly lied to get what he wanted. Two very different creatures.

By nobody and people, I mean those that are bringing out information that only leads to the conclusion that this wasn't a mistake, but that someone either close to the President, coughCheneycough, or the President himself knowingly lied, exaggerated and fear mongered their way to this little war.

I can understand a mistake. But not when you keep repeating it ad nauseum while those in the know are saying rather loudly "bullshit!". Remember when Bush was with Blair a year ago last summer? He specifically pointed to an IAEA report about Iraqi nuclear capabilities. The head of the IAEA had to come out afterwards and point out that Bush was pointing to a non-existant report, and also point out that they had no evidence whatsoever of an Iraqi nuclear program. What about the ongoing weapons inspections? The inspectors said nearly everyday, we can't find shit. All the while, the administration kept up with the monotonous WMD, WMD, WMD, WMD crap. Claimed they knew exactly where they were, while inspectors in Iraq turned the country upside down over and over again finding nothing.

How can anyone call it a simple mistake????? The administration still has yet to show any of there evidence. The paltry shit they've shown so far was debunked almost as soon as the papers hit the table.

Simple mistake my ass!

[Sick of Bullshit]

15. Someone must have put something in Clinton's water

That's the only reason I can think of as to why he'd be buying this half-baked cow pie

[Paragon]

9. Don't be so hard on Bill...

...he's got corporate speaking engagements to think about. :eyes:

[bluestateguy]

11. The problem with this

is next time some Democrat tries to criticize the ush Administration for dishonesty the Republican talking points will be "See!! See!! EVEN CLINTON says it's not his fault!!!" and that will have to be the end of that.

[TankLV]

29. Ya got that right!

Extremely disheartening.

Sorry to say, that' a one-two knockout punch.

Repiggies - 10 - 100 - 1,000? Democrats and democracy - 0.

Bunkerboy got away with another one, again, to be redundant.

It's all over but for the cleanup crew like the guy at the end of the Bullwinkle Show.

[RapidCreek]

110. Then again

one can always respond that Willy Boy said something similar when he was called on lying to a Grand Jury about getting his cock sucked. As "understandable" as he and his apologists feel his mistake might have been....it still didn't prevent an 86 million dollar impeachment and the subsequent fall of the Democratic Party.

RC

[Zero Gravitas]

12. Presidents do make Mistakes

(as do ex-presidents) But Presidents should also take responsibility for mistakes made by their administrations which so far Chimpy has refused to do. In any case the Iraq Debacle goes far beyond the lies about yellowcake from Niger. Clinton & Bush* both knew (or should have known) that there was no active WMD program in Iraq and "President Botch*" knew (or should have known) that even if Iraq had WMDs there was no imminent threat to the US and therefore no justification to pre-emptively invade and occupy Iraq.

The SOTU-gate thing is just a pimple on the ass of the lies and distortions that made up the Botch* Regime's case for war on Iraq. In any case the Regime's problems go far beyond the SOTU-gate thing anyway, that issue is only of interest to political junkies, the real millstone round their necks is the chaos in Occupied Iraq and the almost daily killing of US troops by Iraqi Resistance fighters.

[Cocoa]

13. this makes Bush look small by comparison

Bush and the republicans have been blaming Clinton for all their failures. They impeached him over nothing, for chrissakes.

Then Clinton turns around and plays the elder statesman who puts the good of the country and the world ahead of petty differences.

People can't help but notice the contrast between the lying, crouching, vindictive Bushies, and the gracioius Clinton. Some of them may see this and say to themselves "hey, Clinton's not such a bad guy, why do these guys hate him so much?"

[Khephra]

14. Where have you been since the 2000 Selection?

This is the same public that still believes that Saddam was involved with 9/11. The majority of people don't think as much as you just wrote.

Clinton fucked the Democrats on this one. There's no doubt about it.

(on edit: sorry, I don't mean to be snide. I'm just angry right now.)

[Cocoa]

38. maybe wishful thinking on my part...

but I don't think this hurts the Bush critics.

I actually do want to hear what Clinton really thinks of Iraq. He dealt with the issue for eight years, it would be a waste of his experience if he shaded his comments just to criticize Bush.

One thing that's interesting, and depressing, is that there's more substance in that Clinton interview than in the sum of all of Bush's comments since he took office.

[RapidCreek]

118. Wishful thinking?

That's putting it mildly. It blows the Bush critics right out of the water. :nuke: Perhaps not the validity of their words but certainly their import.

Great job Billy Boy.....you first paint Democrats as immoral hypocrites by getting your dick sucked and lying about it.... now you finish the job by rendering them irrelevant!

With friends like Clinton, who needs enemies?

RC

[ILeft]

31. Gore's dignity in December of 2000 made Bush look small, too

Unfortunately, that did not make any difference- most Americans still seem to get their thinking from FOX and Rush Limbaugh. We're still fucked.

[RapidCreek]

114. No, Gores "Dignity" made Bush look like what he was and evidently

is....a winner. Clinton words only confirm this. The ends justify the means and lies and cheating are forgivable and in some cases laudable, as long as you get away with them.



RC

[Dover]

43. Suggesting Bush's actions was a "mistake" is not even accurate!

Clinton wouldn't even discuss the most important issues, except the, budget, when he made his speaking rounds...or answer questions outside those parameters. He seems to support the invasion of Iraq. He has been more of a liability than a help imo. Really makes you wonder....

[dfong63]

49. right on

clinton should know when to open his trap, and when to keep it shut.

[Cocoa]

150. why would he NOT support the invasion?

he's the one who first stated the "regime change" policy, at the request of PNAC.

[Terwilliger]

16. while I agree wholeheartedly with Clinton

I just have to wonder who the fuck he serves?!?!

[GreenArrow]

134. "Please 'low me to introduce myself

I'm a man of wealth and taste..."

[chadm]

141. same people

CFR.

[JackSwift]

17. Deliberately lying is understandable?

Only from Clinton. I too now wash my hands of the matter. At the least he could have shut up about it. I hope Hillary divorces this creep. Are ya helping the party yet Bill? Or just yourself?

On the other hand, maybe Clinton wants to get the focus off the damn yellowcake and onto something else, but he really can't set the agenda for the press, they follow each other around sniffing each other's asses.

Where are the Enron prosecutions? World Com? Etc.? Or is there going to be more tort reform to protect these guys even more? How about running the Iraq war really badly, troops not getting enough supplies, having their benefits cut.

[Freddie Stubbs]

145. No one has shown any evidence that he knowingly lied

As much as we would all like to find that evidence, it hasn't been discovered. Until then, this scandal isn't really going anywhere.

[jfkennedy]

149. Perhaps

Perhaps he did not know it was a lie but (he should of known) that what he was saying in the speech was a lie to the American people,and thus a fraud. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud.

[Freddie Stubbs]

152. But without some real proof

(such as some one who worked in the White House or the CIA coming forword and saying that he told Bush that this was bad intelegence) Bush is going to get away on this on.

[fshrink]

18. I refused Kerry's "get over it", I will refuse Clinton's "It's the job".

Looks like the guy is begging for forgiveness himself.

[Khephra]

21. All I need next is for Gore to say

"Bush won the election fair and square," the next time he comes out in public.

That would complete my trifecta of idiotic Democratic comments.

[chadm]

142. Kerry's just looking out for his own kind

both Skull & Bones you know.

[robbedvoter]

19. F* Saddam, I'm taking him down" - way before congress, UN

CIA and all the justifications were cooked. So, preemptive attack of a sovereign nation for cooked up reasons was a mistake? Well, than Adolf made many such mistakes - we should be kind to him too!

[seventhson]

24. One word: Mena

If you know history you understand it

google Bush, Mena and Clinton ----then duck

It's ugly


clinton is one of them


Gore in 2004!!!!

[robbedvoter]

27. I know history - Mena is BS - trotted by the Nation and the

wingnuts - where the extremists met. Just because Clinton said something seriously wrong right now, I am not going into the WRVC (aided by the Ralph&comp).

[Freddie Stubbs]

161. If there had been any truth to the Mena allegations

Ken Starr would have brought it up. But he didn't. It would have been far more explosive than giving misleading testamony.

[hedda_foil]

20. Betrayal writ large, Bill, you son of a bitch!

After vehemently defending Clinton throughout his presidency, I had lost the ability to believe in him when I caught onto what the DLC was all about (finally) last year. This, though, is the fucking END! He telegraphed this move when he stood up for Blair again at the "progressive" conference in Europe last week. This is even worse, though. This is treasonous, AFAIC.

You betcha the pukes can say even Clinton doesn't think the "16 words" amount to anything. Take the issue off the table whydontcha Bill.

BASTARD~!!

[Tinoire]

77. I'm sorry Hedda. And you helped open my eyes...

Really sorry for all of us. The more I think about it, the more I'm numb... This, I guess, was just the coup-de-grace.

On edit: Why do you think he said this? What are they trying to cover for? It's more than the Iraq sanctions, Kosovo and that other stuff. I'm getting the impression they're trying to avoid a rebellion among the people.

Bush, PNAC, the DLC - they KNOW they're in trouble. They read these boards, Carnivore's seen the increase in electronic medium on the key-terms. I think they're becoming afraid that the whole house of cards is crashing down.

It's all over except the lying.

[Wonder]

87. okay okay Hedda foil

I'm with you on this, can this be stopped? And I never wholeheartedly supported clinton either. He pissed me off around Lonnie Guenier.


you know what pisses me off. I have my bilderberg sources tucked away for a rainy day, and I've skimmed this and that and the CFR, NWO quotes and yadda yadda, and even though it made sense like a kind of ouigi board, every time I would bring it up I would get laughed at or ridiculed, so I never gave it much credence really is what I am trying to say.

what a motherfucking scam this is (pardon my afro american). Thought control to the 33rd degree. This can not be stopped then whatever election this or that what ever candidate isn't carter also on the trilat. Anyone outside the loop they will assassinate.

what are you thoughts?

(one thing I don't get though why'd they take clinton down then, was he getting a little too rambunctious as it is he undermined security a bit when he slipped some of the sensitive documents to china).

Hedda Foil have you got a minute?

[schultzee]

171. Yeah! and for NAFTA too Bill, you betrayed the core Dems!

Bill was a DLC darling.

[schultzee]

173. Yes, he betrayed us. NAFTA and now this.

We don't need a republican light.

[Borgnine]

22. Billy?

Hello, Bill? IS THERE ANYONE HOME IN THERE?

[Lauren2882]

23. Let's try to calm down guys ...

Ok, this is really incredible. I'm so astonished, incredulous, ... I can't believe that Bill Clinton just said what he did. But I think we need to not panic.

For the next week or so, Republicans are going to be saying, as another poster pointed out, "Hey look! Even BILL CLINTON said that Bush just made a silly mistake! So all you liberals just need to GET OVER IT!" That refrain will probably repeat itself occasionally far into the future.

But we have to hope that the BIG story underlying all of this will predominate in the long run. There are going to be hearings, continued revelations, and, I hate to say it, but continued casualties. Democrats need to say, "While I have great respect for President Clinton, I cannot brush this aside as easily as he did. This is very serious."

Remember, the election is in 15 months, not 15 days.

[Cha]

32. But the repugs just cancel themselves out because they

have made it clear that they think bill clinton is irrelevant and always has been in their book.

[Lauren2882]

37. Right

... They can't have it both ways. Either Clinton's got credibility or he doesn't.

[Tinoire]

46. Hi Lauren - We need to wake up to the DLC asap!

A large portion of DU has already opened their eyes.

2 years ago I had NEVER heard of the DLC- now I am totally sickened by what I've found out after 2 years of devouring all the information on this board.

The rabbit hole is deep and ugly.

And I apologize to all DU-ers who are supporting a DLC candidate but we only have 15 months to get up to speed. I know we all want to best for our party and our country which is the only reason I dare post my conclusions on this board. Otherwise my tendency would be to keep them to myself and but as you say, the elections are in 15 months and we cannot go gently into the night.

It's all over for them except for the lying and we're going to hear lies coming from neo-cons, Dems, Republicans for the next 15+ months. And one thing you can bet your soul on is that we will never know the truth.

Peace

Oh and PS - Excellent sentiment.

[moondust]

25. Woops! Accidentally sounded the nuclear alarm!

Happens all the time. No big deal.

[Catherine Vincent]

26. Don't know what to say.....

Clinton really disappoint me. But had he said anything against Bush and focused on the lying, I KNOW the republicans would have launched a frenzy of criticism on him and his wife.

I dont know, I think he had to say something like that. I don't like it but regardless, it won't let Shrubnuts off the hook, imo. He's still a lying prick and a disgrace.

[w4rma]

30. President Clinton took the DLC position while President Carter opposed it

Read Carter's Nobel Lecture, delivered in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2002.
Carter warns against 'catastrophic' war (December 10, 2002)
A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War (January 31, 2003)
Carter: Iraq threat does not justify war (January 31, 2003)
Carter Says Bush Has 'Not Made a Case' for War (February 1, 2003)
Carter Urges More Diplomacy on Iraq - Ex-President Blames Neglect of Mideast for Anti-American Mood (Feburary 25, 2003)
Just War — or a Just War? (March 9, 2003)

[Cha]

33. Good on Carter!

:toast: to Jimmy! A fine Nobel Peace Prize Winner!

[whirlygigspin]

34. whoa nellie!

I think Clinton is trying to keep the republicans
saddled to the old war horse until the next election.
It would be bad indeed if they got a chance to change
horses before the big race!

Bill, you is one sly fox!

yihaw!

[robbedvoter]

39. Same Carter who endorsed the stolen election as OK?

Guy who kissed the monkey and jumped on pardongate? That wonderful Carter? I'll take Bill over him any day - with tonight idiocy!

[w4rma]

50. What did Clinton do differently on those specific issues?

I don't remember Clinton taking an opposing position.

Anyway, IMHO, President Carter is the best and most ethical president that the United States has had in 30 years.

Clinton is still taking the DLC leadership's position it appears. Also, note that Clinton was advising Blair (who is now political toast) during the build up to the Iraq invasion.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair sought advice during the buildup to the war in Iraq from President Bill Clinton, according to published reports.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-irq26.html
http://newsblaster.cs.columbia.edu/archives/2003-04-29-01-08-10/web/summaries/2003-04-29-01-11-12-050.html

[Forkboy]

66. Carter is a million times the man Bill is

and I dont dislike Clinton.

[masslib]

120. Carter thought the 2000 election was ok?

On an NPR “Morning Edition” interview conducted in January 2001, Carter compared the elections that he has overseen to the electoral process in Florida. Carter was asked whether he would be willing to monitor the next election in Florida. Carter responded, “Well, this past year, in the year 2000, we monitored six elections in the world… And I was really taken aback and embarrassed by what happened in Florida. If we were invited to go into a foreign country to monitor the election, and they had similar election standards and procedures, we would refuse to participate at all.” He continued, “I could not believe that in Florida the error rate was expected to be three or four percent, which is an enormous amount of votes, many of which, of course, as you know, were not counted.”

Carter, Jimmy. Interview. Morning Edition. NPR. 9 Jan. 2001

Did I miss something?

[robbedvoter]

122. Then he kissed the monkey and said he was sorry for all that

Whatever Clinton is doing now, at least he din't kiss Adolph!

[Tinoire]

52. Whoa! Great Links! Thanks! n/t

[agincourt]

35. Unfortunately

Pretzel boy is still 59% in the polls. I don't think we're getting much traction on the WMD issue except in the media. Maybe Bill doesn't see us going far with this issue.

[Freddie Stubbs]

175. This story will get traction

once someone comes forward with some sort of proof that Bush new that the info in the speech was bogus. Short of that, it is simply a tempest in a tea pot. Clinton knows that.

[Tinoire]

36. Ok- I'm going to say this gently - This is a CFR Project and Bill is CFR

Clinton is CFR. Bush Sr. was CFR. George Bush Jr's administration is almost 100% CFR. ((And no one really believes Jr is running this show do they?)) The James Baker Energy Plan that laid the ground-work for the invasion of Iraq was for/by the CFR. See Ref 1 at the end of this post. Clinton refused to have this war under his watch which is why he was impeached, demonized and humiliated over a blow-job. If you have questions about anything I just wrote (or below) please ask, and I'll give you the reference. I realize this post is sloppy because it's mostly a cut and paste job from previous posts I made this week... So please ask if you need a ref or something is unclear. My conclusions could be wrong but the facts are indisputable.

There's an important thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php#58334 called: HUGE: Donald Rumsfeld FED CLINTON THE LIES ABOUT HUSSEIN.... that everyone should really, really read.

We complain about things like Homeland Security and blame it on Bush yet no one stops to ask why the plans for it were drafted under and signed by Clinton. Same with Clinton signing FEMA. Same with Clinton bombing the *&^ out of Iraq DAILY for 8 continuous years while strong-arming the UN into maintaining those obscene sanctions that killed half a million Iraqi children at the rate of 5000 a month (meticulously documented by UNICEF). Kosovo was also about oil and planned/outlined in CFR documents.

------


CFR
Bilderbergers
Trilateral Commission
Illuminati
Carlyle

All of the stories that have been exploding this week are ALL related to the goals of the first three organizations. The 4th group is just a loose cast of actors and the 5th is no more than their investment house.

PNAC, AEI, the Energy papers are just means to their aims. The DLC is closely tied to PNAC and AEI- Hedda Foil and Stephanie and a few others here at DU did some amazing research on PNAC, AEI and their relationship with the DLC. Clinton, our hero President was CFR which is why we saw the groundwork (first draft of Homeland Security, NAFTA, WTO, case-laying for the attack on Iraq) laid under him no matter how reluctant he was about implementing certain aspects of the plan (he REFUSED to go to war with Iraq on manufactured evidence which is why we saw him humiliated in front of the world over something as ludicrous as a blow-job). Manufactured evidence for this war coming straight from the neo-cons and the OSP.
-----

(Excerpt)
Clinton Administration officials attempting to make the case for military action against Iraq were shouted down at two Midwestern campuses in late February. Evoking memories of the 1960s, protestors jeered cabinet members with profanity and derisive chants.

At Ohio State University, a media-staged international "town-meeting" went sour when activists pelted government officials with obscenity-laced interruptions. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger were at times barely audible and incapable of completing sentences due to yells of "racist," "murderer," and "liar."

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/march_1998_3.html

******************

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger were interrupted repeatedly with loud heckling, boos, catcalls and occasional obscenities from audience members in the rafters. One person was arrested. Shouts of protest occasionally were met with louder chants of support, and at times the situation got so out of hand that CNN was forced to cut to a commercial.

Some of the wildest exchanges occurred off-camera and during commercial breaks. Rick Theis, who got into a heated face-to-face shouting match with CNN anchor Bernard Shaw during a break, was hauled off the arena floor by security. Theis -- who said the United States has failed to make a case for attacking Iraq -- accused CNN of trying to shut him up and called the event a sham.. "The president has said this action won't get rid of Saddam nor his weapons of mass destruction," he said. "All we're doing is sending a message. And I don't want to send a message with the blood of Iraqi children."

<snip>

"Tell them about the oil," someone shouted. "World War I, World War II, we don't need World War III," yelled another.

<snip>

Those questioning the officials wanted to know how the United States would handle retaliation by Iraq or why there are different standards of justice for countries around the world. Often, their questions went unanswered. "How many will die?" someone shouted from the rafters. Estimates have put the number of Iraqi civilians likely to die in an attack by the United States at close to 100,000. Albright said: "I'll make a bet that we care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does."

<snip>

http://members.aol.com/mwpress/report5.html (no copyright- request to distribute)

--------------
02-19-98

<snip>

Albright said the goal of the meeting was to "explain the policy ramifications" of the Iraqi situation.

<snip>

The discussion was interrupted early and often. Protesters began chanting anti-war slogans during Albright's opening comments and continued through much of the debate.

<snip>

Berger said the aim of a possible airstrike would be twofold: to diminish Saddam Hussein's weapons and reduce the threat to Iraq's neighbors.

"We will send a clear message to would-be tyrants and terrorists that we will do what is necessary to protect our freedom," Berger said.

Albright said Iraq will not easily recover from airstrikes if they occur.

<snip>

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/feb/02-19-98/news/news1.html

------------------

Some lawmakers insist Clinton set war date

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain said it's time for President Clinton to set a deadline for Saddam Hussein to back down or face U.S. military might. Other lawmakers insisted Sunday the president not act without a vote of support from Congress, which is on vacation next week.

<snip>

He said on ''Fox News Sunday'' that the current standoff - threats by the United States to use force unless Hussein gives unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors - gives Iraqi President Hussein an ''equal place in the world forum'' and ''continues to erode our credibility.''
<snip>
http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/archives/021698/briefly.html
------

This is one HELL of a rabbit hole!

"The spies who pushed for war"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18394&mesg_id=18394&listing_type=search

This smoking gun ties right in to the thread about the Klayman papers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=20394


and the Enron, Iraq, Cheney and the California Energy Swindle
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=64416&mesg_id=64416&page=

(((((Cut and pasted from sub-thread beginning post 19 re the "dark figures" David Kelly talked about before "killing himself"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=23111&mesg_id=23111&listing_type=search#23238)))))

-------

Another revealing piece of the puzzle was also recently revealed by Chuck Baldwin, writer. According to Baldwin, former President Bill Clinton was quoted while speaking to a CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) gathering:

Referring to President G. W. Bush's new Homeland Security department, former President Bill Clinton told a gathering of Council on Foreign Relations members last week, "We have been building this for a long time."

http://www.tpromo.com/gk/jun02/062602.htm

---
Homeland Security Act

President Bush signed the Homeland Security bill into law on November 25th, 2002.

The Bush administration has claimed that the Homeland Security department and the Homeland Security Act are reactions to the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, CNN and other news agencies have repeatedly reported this.

<snip>

However, this is not the case. Plans for the Department of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Act were underway as early as 1998. In 1998 the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century began working on a report called Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, which was issued January 31st 2001. This report called for the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency.

The Commission was actually put together by the Clinton administration and supported by Senator Lieberman. The Bush administration was initially against the idea of the Department of Homeland Security because it was part of the Clinton legacy. However, the initial report by the Commission has been significantly changed and added to by the Bush administration since 9/11.

The initial report outlining the National Homeland Security Agency can be found here:

http://www.nssg.gov/phaseIII.pdf


The Commission was strongly influenced by the Council on Foreign Relations; 9 of its 14 members were members of the CFR.

The Council on Foreign Relations is a semi-secret private organization with strict membership standards. The CFR was created in 1921, originally known as the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations. In the CFR's own words:

"If the Council as a body has stood for anything these 75 years, it has been for American internationalism based on American interests. If the Council has had influence during this period, it has derived from individual members taking the varied and often conflicting fare of Council meetings and publications to a wider American audience. From Foreign Affairs articles by W.E.B. DuBois and George F. Kennan to books by Henry A. Kissinger and Stanley Hoffmann, the Council's role has been to find the best minds and leaders, bring them together with other Council members, and provide forum and stage."

Most of the previous directors of the CIA have been members of the CFR including Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, William Colby, George Bush, William Webster, James Woolsey, John Deutsch, and William Casey.

<snip>

Bush cabinet members Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Robert Blackwill, Dick Cheney, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, Lewis Libby, and Robert Zoellick are also members of the CFR, as are other members of the Bush cabinet. It should be noted that members of the Clinton administration were also members of the CFR as well; in fact members of the CFR have been part of nearly every administration since WWII.

The CFR has bee accused of being everything from a Nazi organization to a Communist organization, and is typically associated with conspiracy theories about Anglo global domination and the New World Order. The CFR has had a strong influence on American foreign and domestic policy, but its impact on America is typically not exposed in the media, nor is it open to public scrutiny.

The official CFR website:

http://www.cfr.org/


Back to Homeland Security.

When the Homeland Security proposal was first put forward it was a 32 page document, and by the time it was finally signed into law by the President it was a 500 page document that calls for the creation of the largest federal agency in history with 170,000 employees. The proposed budget for the agency for 2003 is $37.45 billion. The agency will bring the tasks of 22 agencies under one umbrella.

The bill was voted on and passed by the House and Senate with little debate and not enough time to actually review the document.

The Homeland Security Act has changed over time, and some of the powers initially included in the Homeland Security bill have been taken out in part due to the protests of citizens and special interests groups such as the ACLU.

Items of interest in the Homeland Security Act:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/analysis/

By reporting information to the Department of Homeland Security corporations can have information classified as confidential, no longer accessible to the public
By reporting information to the Department of Homeland Security federal and state agencies can have information classified as confidential, no longer accessible to the public
The exact text of the bill can be found here (below is the analysis of the section):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/analysis/title2.html#204

"Section 204. Information voluntarily provided.

This section encourages the sharing of information with the Department of Homeland Security by the private sector, state and local governments, and individuals. It provides that information voluntarily provided by non-federal parties to the Department of Homeland Security that relates to infrastructure vulnerabilities or other vulnerabilities to terrorism is not subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Also, such information would not lose its protected character if forwarded by the Department of Homeland Security to other federal departments or agencies."

The ACLU's response to the section:

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=10525&c=111

The Total Information Awareness program, lead by John Poindexter who was found guilty of illegal activity in the Iran/Contra contra hearings, designed to collect and analyze data on all US citizens including purchases, medical data, e-mail, internet activity, academic records, and records from all law enforcement offices. This program is currently on hold for further review. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/01/29/tia_privacy/index_np.html
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/TIA/

The official TIA Office web site:

http://www.darpa.mil/iao/index.htm

Items that have been removed from the act due to public outcry:

The ability for the federal government to mandate vaccinations
Removal of legal responsibility of vaccination companies so that there would be no legal recourse for victims of death and injury resulting from vaccinations
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/vaccination-program-qa.asp?type=cat&cat=Smallpox+Program+Implementation&subCat1=Liability+Issues

The TIPS program, which was a program designed to encourage citizens to spy on their neighbors and co-workers
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11295&c=206


Tons of information available at
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/homeland_security_act.htm


Ref 1

Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21ST Century
Report of an Independent Task Force

Cosponsored by the
James A. Baker III Institute
for Public Policy of Rice University
and the Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Energy_TaskForce.pdf (pages 46-47)

The United States should conduct an immediate policy
review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and
political/diplomatic assessments.The United States should
then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe
and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to
restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore
a cohesive coalition of key allies.Goals should be designed
in a realistic fashion, and they should be clearly and consistently
stated and defended to revive U.S. credibility on this issue.
Actions and policies to promote these goals should endeavor
to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi people.S anctions
that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with
highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s
ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction.
A new plan of action should be developed to use diplomatic
and other means to support U.N. Security Council efforts
to build a strong arms-control regime to stem the flow of
and controlled substances into Iraq.P olicy should
rebuild coalition cooperation on this issue, while emphasizing
the common interest in security.This issue of arms sales to
Iraq should be brought near the top of the agenda for dialogue
with China and Russia.

Once an arms-control program is in place, the United States
could consider reducing restrictions on oil investments
inside Iraq.Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major
asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and
inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade.Ho wever, such
a policy will be quite costly as this trade-off will encourage
Saddam Hussein to boast of his “victory” against the United
States, fuel his ambitions, and potentially strengthen his
regime.Once so encouraged and if his access to oil revenues
were to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam
Hussein could be a greater security threat to U.S. allies
in the region if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sanctions,
weapons regimes, and the coalition against him are not
strengthened.S till, the maintenance of continued oil sanctions
is becoming increasingly difficult to implement.Mor eover,
Saddam Hussein has many means of gaining revenues,
and the sanctions regime helps perpetuate his lock on the
country’s economy.

Another problem with easing restrictions on the Iraqi oil
industry to allow greater investment is that GCC allies of
the United States will not like to see Iraq gain larger market
share in international oil markets.In fact, even Russia
could lose from having sanctions eased on Iraq, because Russian
companies now benefit from exclusive contracts and Iraqi
export capacity is restrained, supporting the price of oil
and raising the value of Russian oil exports.If sanctions covering
Iraq’s oil sector were eased and Iraq benefited from infrastructure
improvements, Russia might lose its competitive
position inside Iraq, and also oil prices might fall over time,
hurting the Russian economy.These issues will have to be
discussed in bilateral exchanges.

----Post 58 in this thread has most of the references I used: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=25527&mesg_id=25527&listing_type=search#26122

[WilliamPitt]

40. That was gently?

:) Thanks for that.

[Tinoire]

42. oh lol--- I thought so... That was as gently as I could do it tonight :)

If you need any additional references because I didn't connect the dots properly, please ask- I'll come back to this thread tomorrow.

I've been zig-zagging this board all week connecting dots the way I see them. I have more, much more and this ties in to Hedda_Foil and Stephanie's work on PNAC and their ties to the DLC.

Will Pitt, this is one HELL of a rabbit hole! And I don't think most people are ready for it because it shakes some of our most cherished beliefs.

Great nations do horrible things and we were once a great nation!

Regardless of everything I've referenced about Clinton I still think he was a great President for us. Why a poor boy from Arkansas got caught up with these clowns is beyond me. Scratch that, I know why- no poor boy from Arkansas is going to be the President of the US unless he plays ball... and Clinton didn't want to play ball ALL the way which is why I believe he was impeached after sending Berger and Albright on that "pre-Iraq War" recon and refusing to wage war when he saw the reaction of the public. Just a theory ...

Make sure you read this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php#59002 They kept trying to chip away at Clinton for ages... The neo-cons AND our DLC/CFR Dems...

Peace

[anamandujano]

71. So, was Clinton in on 911 MIHOP??

I was also sickened but not surprised, forwarned (as another poster mentioned) by his propping up of Blair in the lead up to the war, "Trust Tony".

And obviously, Hillary is going along for the ride. Now we know what is motivating the congressional dems, not all, but many of them. Very disheartening.

[Tinoire]

76. Do a google

Clinton Blair "war criminal" Kosovo

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Clinton+Blair+%22war+criminal%22+Kosovo

It should have been no surprise to people that Blair teamed up with Bush. That tiger (Blair) did NOT change his stripes.

And even writing this hurts because I liked Clinton. And I lied earlier, I say I was prepared. I wasn't. I knew but I wasn't really prepared. This is a slap in the face to all of us.

ALL the boys are afraid, I think, of the closets full of bones that are about to come tumbling out.

It's all over but the lying.

On edit: Just had a REALLY scary thought... Nuclear diversion coming? :scared:

[Wonder]

85. right on right on

and how do you stop the bilderbergs and the rothchilds et al?

what year is this again? thanks for pulling all that together.

you can scream it from the highest mountain... too gentle indeed,

where is this post 58?

[Tinoire]

86. Right here... In this thread

Post 58 right here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=25527&mesg_id=25527&listing_type=search#26122

Another sloppy effort but not as sloppy as the post I made earlier

and don't forget this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=58334&mesg_id=58334

[Wonder]

90. thanks!

I have been on the right track with much of this... this will probably make it even easier to see. Not that it isn't almost crystal clear already so HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT the way it is.

[Tinoire]

95. Well by all means share whatever you have!

I used to have a ton of stuff but have lost most of it. Would be greatly appreciated!

Oh and welcome to DU :toast: (since I've never seen you before) :)

[concord]

162. You've been busy!

Thanks Tinoire :)

[Tinoire]

184. :) 2 years worth of voracious reading in that post! :) Anytime n/t

[NNN0LHI]

41. Sorry guys and gals but Clinton said just what I hoped he would say

It is true that mistakes are made by everyone. It is just as true that Bush has never in his life admitted to making any mistakes ever. And a lot of people also believed that Bush was incapable of making mistakes too. So far Bush has blamed this mess on the British, the CIA, White House staff, and anyone else he could find to blame. This statement only shows that even Bush can and does make mistakes regardless of whether he wants to admit it or not. The die has been cast now that Bush does make mistakes. And it also looks like it is not just because of the Dems all piling on trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill which can only help to convince people that Bush is not infallabe as they have been lead to believe. Clinton just cut Bush's throat here by making this statement. Bush is no longer Superman in the eyes of the American people from here on out. People who are capable of making a mistake about something as important as sending our soldiers to their deaths can not be trusted to not make other mistakes too. Like in handling the economy, making judgements on Social Security reform, reducing the national debt, creating jobs, or anything else for that matter.

Clinton did not win 2 elections and then get his vice president elected in another election by being stupid. He knows damn well that the armour has been pierced for Bush. People are now thinking and wondering to themselves if this guy can be trusted to make other important decisions. You don't need to beat them over the head with it to make them reassess Bush's qualifications for the job. Clinton watched himself being impeached but yet the American people stood by him because they knew that the Republicans were only playing politics. It would not look good for the people to think the same thing is going on now to Bush. If they thought that for one minute they would stand behind Bush too.

Clinton did the smart thing here knowing full well that the Iraq nightmare, high unemployment numbers, record national debt along with Juniors plummeting approval ratings will be enough to take Bush out next year without him piling on at this point making himself look like just another patisian hack attacking Bush. Presidents who get people killed because of their mistakes are unelectable, and Clinton knows this.

Don

[Dover]

47. We ALL know that was no "mistake", so why frame it as one?.............n/t

..

[NNN0LHI]

53. Because "we" are not all of the American voters

There are a few more voters living in the US who are not DUers. And DUers alone cannot beat Bush. No matter how loud we yell.

Don

[Paschall]

81. Interesting point, but...

...I think it's worth mentioning a couple things about Clinton's remarks:

1) He says, "I don't know what was true, what was false." As I read it, that means he may think we still need to find out the truth via investigations. In any case, it seems a rather startling thing to say because...

2) Clinton, as former president, should have been privy to the daily CIA briefings. What was the content of his briefings? Were they different than those Shrub got? (And, remember, Bill is covering for Hillary who voted for the invasion based on the intelligence reports that are now in dispute.) What is Bill telling us about the information he and Hillary received?

3) Clinton said, in essence, anybody can make a mistake. What he didn't say is that nobody--especially the president--should be mistaken all the time: WMDs, finding Saddam, miscalculating Iraqi reaction, bungling plans for peacekeeping, not securing nuclear and cultural sites, etc., etc. It may be that Bill is telling us this is only one little drop in the bucket and there is more to come. I'd like to think so, anyway.

[Dover]

48. We ALL know that was no "mistake", so why frame it as one?.............n/t

..

[study_war_no_more]

59. I hear they plan to throw marshmellows at him until he admits shucks

There are fat rats in the cheese factory there are foxes guarding the henhouse, are you catching my drift? They ain't just gonna go away.

[Tinoire]

60. Interesting angle and I'd whole-heartedly agree except

except for what Emillereid stated in post #45. And I sincerely mean that. 1 year, even 6 months ago, I would have agreed with you. I can't anymore, not after well,,, finding out all the stuff I put in my earlier posts in this thread.

How much more proof do we need to accept that the DLC is no true friend of the Democratic Party?

Tomorrow the damage control will start and all the spin.

Neither party can afford for the other party to go down right now - it's the beauty of a two-party system where the co-habitation has become disgustingly immoral... MHO

Peace

[loyalsister]

100. You nailed it!

Bush is NOT going to be pegged for a deliberate lie here. It's not going to happen. If the issue is "did he lie?" and they pull the dumb card to get him out of a lie, he's out of it unscathed as it passes by with no lie found.
If you step back and look at the situation there are ONLY two possibilities. He was lying or he is not competent for the presidency. Competency should be the issue here. They have used it as an excuse too many times, and people breathe a sigh of relief because "at least he wasn't lying to them."
"Is this president competent?" should be the primary question asked right now. They're telling us he doesn't read the entirety of his national security documents, and he's not asking questions he should be asking in order to prevent the possibility of his appearing to have lied. It's all going to be technical, on that basis there's a very good chance he didn't, and if people see him as a victim they most certainly will rally behind him the way they did Clinton.

[LeftHander]

117. Excellent Point

I am glad you posted this.

[GCP]

156. Thanks, Don. Clinton is a better politician than any of us on this board

He knows how the vast majority of the people in this nation think and act.
The vast majority of people do not think like us. They don't really care who's in power as long as they feel safe and have a decent job, can put food on their families (!) and a roof over their heads. They are repelled by extreme partisanship of either persuasion, and that's why they stuck by him in the impeachment crisis.

People only have to look at the country and the state it's in now to figure out how good they had it under Bill and what a heap of turds that Bush has made of it.

The Dems have to keep on hammering about the economy, the debt, North Korea, the environment, and let the press do the dirty work on the lies or mistakes about Iraqi WMD.

Just my $.02, but I do think all the Bilderberg, CFR, Skull and Bones etc etc conspiracy theories makes us all look like a bunch of nuts.

[Wonder]

179. Bush can and does make "mistakes"

hmmm interesting take. Also viable. Thing is, as this unravels, will the US majority catch on that the word "mistakes" is than also a tongue in cheek mask for the Bush can and does "LIE"? Especially if this current mob has some other provocations up their sleeve and the Dems fail to keep the heat on.

[goforit]

44. Clinton, if ya want to sink with Bush ,....Go ahead take a dive!!!

This war is absolutely inexcusable!!!

And we as Americans have to wake up and re-evaluate ourselves with some inner reflection.

THIS WAR WAS WRONG!!!!

[Emillereid]

45. Clinton has to take this stance

to a)justify his own dismal policy of spying and bombing Iraq for 8 years and enforcing the criminal sanctions and b) because Hillary was one of the wimps who supported the Iraq war resolution in Oct., 2002 that gave the Chimp an blank check to wage war. I liked Clinton a lot but he never was a liberal and his politics were usually Republican lite.

[dfong63]

54. clinton does not have to take any stance

... he's not running for anything. if he doesn't have anything useful to say, then he should keep his trap shut.

[DannyRed]

55. Clinton

and most of the Democrats are ON THE SAME TEAM as the GOP.

When the chips are down, and the integrity of the capitalist order is threatened by wholesale anger, disbelief, or disillusionment on the part of large swaths of the public, the establishment press, and etc...the "opposition" party will ALWAYS step up to the bat and "take one for the team".

Look, this WMD bullshit threatens the basic integrity of the American government, challenges the trust people have in their leaders and their governmental structure, and lays bare a whole host of extremely ugly, extremely world-shattering truths about the American power elite, the American imperial system, the complicity of both parties in wide scale lies and mass murders that took place over decades, the complicity of both parties in arming and funding murderous terrorists, dictators and thugs, and so on down the line.

What is clear is that at a moment of extreme financial, fiscal, economic, political, and social uncertainty, with American working class kids dying every day in a foreign land for no good reason based on an extremely expensive lie that is now being used as an excuse to further gut the treasury, cut jobs, eliminate or gut social programs, and so on....

This is a "teachable moment" for entire huge swaths of angry, unhappy uncertain Americans.

If it gets further out of control, BIG rumblings could ensue.

Bill Clinton, the DLC, Kerry, and the rest -- they ALL KNOW THIS.

They will push it to a certain level for political gain, but beyond that they will shush the crowd, try to quiet the waters, and say "move on, nothing to see, shhhhhh".

Do y'all get it yet?

Do y'all see why I am a Red?

Look at what Carter did for the GOP after the Watergate, VietNam, Laos, Cambodia disasters shook the fabric of the nation to its core.

[concord]

163. Good post Red. OK, they all know, what about Dean?

He must know too. Is he part of it? Interesting approach if he's in bed with them all.

[Tinoire]

58. Bingo! But you have to be gentle with that info

It's a LOT to absorb.

Closets are opening all over the place and LOTS of bones are going to start tumbling out on BOTH sides.

Politicians' biggest nightmare... about all the deals cut under the tables, the black-mails, the greed, the lust for power- in short- what politics is all about. It's never, rarely been, about the good of the people. If it were- we would never be in this situation. The Republican Party can't be held responsible for everything! One of these days we're going to have to accept that some of the criticism they aim at our party is true. Hopefully, at the same time, they will become increasingly aware that our criticism is true also and we'll all be able to work towards a better country.

Most people in this country are GOOD. There are as many sincere, good Republicans as there are sincere, good Democrats. The biggest problem is lack of awareness, lack of knowing what's really going on and the internet has changed/is changing all of that.

Hopefully this is the painful start of a brighter future for us all.

[study_war_no_more]

61. luke skywalker HeLLLLLLLPPPPPP

I still think Carter had integrity and Dennis K does also but putting him in the whitehouse will be work before and after but this is our lives and the future of the children. The light is right.

[Tinoire]

64. I agree

I agree that Kucinich is our brightest and biggest hope. I only hope enough people will see that and support him because the force, the wrath of the machinery, is going to fight him tooth and nail, the ENTIRE way.

The pool of Dems I can support if Kucinich loses is small... very small...

[DannyRed]

65. Kucinich

Is not really that great.

None of the Dem candidates are really that great.

The ONLY way to truly go forward is to take the reins of power away from the elite classes.

It sounds cliche, but it is true.

Electing this or that Democrat, Liberal, Green, Populist, Reformer, whatever WILL NOT CHANGE and HAS NEVER CHANGED the way the system is run, who runs the system, how they run the system, and why they do it the way they do.

Work for whomever suits you the best - I know I will.

But have no illusions, make no mistake, and don't get fooled into believing that a single candidate capable of getting elected will ever do ANYTHING to make a serious dent in the armor of the ruling class machine that runs our lives and is quickly running this country and the world to ruin.

[Tinoire]

74. Well you know- my heart agrees with you

but the day we do that is the day they won't hesitate to slaughter us in the streets.


This is not 1789 France...

So like a true chicken-shit liberal...full of conviction but little courage, a coward from the waist down, I'll just walk my little ass to the voting booth.

We are not yet hungry enough to seize the reins of power from the ruling class. Hunger is what drives revolutions and they machiavellically throw us just enough crumbs to eat, and snow us under enough debt to fear being homeless so we work and tolerate.

Death on Credit - Louis-Ferdinand Celine

[study_war_no_more]

169. che guevera said

There will never be a revolution as long as the bus runs on time. I trully wish we were there or at the least spunky enuff to tar and feather there butts but realistically we are not there and we have a long road ahead of us. On the other hand who doesn't know we are sinking, its in peoples eyes and the way they carry themselves. Humans are remarkable wonderful intelligent people. Even a blind man can tell when hes walking in the sun.

[Tinoire]

185. Even a blind man can tell when he's walking in the sun. I like that! n/t

:hi:

[Wonder]

93. I am not convinced he is the savior either

and I agree this is bigger than any single candidate the whole system has to be reassembled, reformed entirely, we need a 3 or 4 party system and campaign reform as well... the days of this two party system are over it does not really provide the checks and balances and the constitution is almost a joke it has been for more time than I probably even know.

[Tinoire]

97. Pardon my bad manners

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[Oreegone]

146. Anyone but Bush in 2004

Lets not lose our minds here and compare the * Group to anyone else. This is a group of sociopaths that have been carefully put together to bring down our constitution, and bill of rights. This is not business as usual. Yes business as usual was not always great, but it wasn't this.

[suegeo]

153. Can these dragons be slayed?

I agree with those who claim this is NOT a left/right argument. It is, rather, a handful of billionaires worldwide versus the rest of us, worldwide.

I also think the government of Jefferson, Madison, et. al. is just one layer of the actual government that rules us today.

The other layers are mostly secret. In my opinion, the people who operate in the secret layers are a major source of the rotten stench in Denmark these days.

In other words, I think getting the PNAC-ers out of the three branches of Jefferson's government (and the 4th estate) is "just getting started" on the real work, which is: we gotta figure out how to make the unaccountable boys in the shadows visible and accountable. Probably on a worldwide basis.

To explain what/who I am talking about, in America, at least, let me pull a description about the boys who operate in the shadows from a book I read.

QUOTE
As the nation's political pathology for spying progressed, it was copied by the FBI and was secretly known as COINTELPRO. Behind this shield, the FBI soon set up a secret network for domestic surveillance and subversion against such policy protesters as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Berrigan Brothers, and every civil rights group of the '60s, '70s and '80s.

When news of this domestic FBI spying was exposed in the mid-70s, the entire covert network went into its underground and mimicked the CIA covert tactics internationally. While this hidden network's real name was never discovered, it has been dubbed LIONS DEN (LIaison Of Networked Systems for DENiability), for the purpose of discussing the system and how it operates even today.

It should be understood that LIONSDEN is not some theoretical conspiracy in which vast numbers of interconnected initiatives flow from a single master plan or mastermind. There is no master plan of intrigue under the guidance of an evil genius embracing all the various government agencies.

Instead, LIONSDEN describes a phenomenon within the US government: a secretive style of doing business. What has become conspiracy by outcome among those agencies using undercover and immoral methods to achieve common policy goals at home and abroad.

LIONS DEN is a kind of automatically operating subsystem that drives how our economy, our military our politics and the whole society must proceed. To change one modality (by, for example, getting rid of all nuclear weapons) is to destroy the effectiveness of the whole. If LIONS DEN has a master, that master is all of America. We, the people, have become We the System.

It doesn't matter what we call the system because, as the FBI's rebellious and retired agent, M. Wesley Swearingen, says in his 1995 expose FBI Secrets, "The (COINTELPRO) program is still in operation today, but under a different code name. The operation is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered under the release of documents under the Freedom of Information Act."

LIONSDEN could be Swearingen's ever-more-secret system; because it is more ambitious, more amorphous and more immoral than even the extra-legal COINTELPRO was. However, because the existence of LIONSDEN is by definition "deniable" it can seem more fanciful than real. Even if LIONSDEN is impossible to prove, it can be diagnosed, like any malady through the symptoms it leaves behind. It is symptomatic of LIONSDEN when:

--Leaders are caught in lies and denials about illegal or immoral actions. The Tonkin Gulf confrontation is one good example.

--Leaders give their staff carte blanche instructions to take certain actions or achieve certain goals on the domestic political front in secrecy, and to spare them the details. The Watergate scandal is a good example.

--Leaders signal that constitutionally-correct protests are to be suppressed by police and punished by the legal system. Examples include the Vietnam War protests by thousands of students and others; the anti-nuclear protests by priests such as the Berrigans; and the civil rights activities of Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr.

--Leaders make use of secret organizations for foreign operations with instructions to develop their own financial means of support for actions barred by Congress. Iran-Contra comes to mind.

--Leaders back secret paramilitary operations to achieve extra-legal goals. The fomenting of the Iran-Iraq war and the backing of the Contras in Central America are prime examples.

--Leaders leave it to quasi-governmental and paramilitary advisory groups to plan economic and national security strategies behind closed doors. The FBI, CIA, Pentagon think tanks and Trilateral Commission have been involved in such matters for years.

--Leaders prop up and use proxies in foreign nations to carry out wars of suppression and campaigns of exploitation: Batista in Cuba, Armas in Guatemala, Shah Reza Pahlevi, Ngo Dinh Diem, et. al.

--Leaders succeed in getting the public to think that democracy is identical to free enterprise, capitalism, multinational business, globalization, American technical dominance, national security, atomic bombs, war, patriotism and Christianity.

Source: pp 23-25, "Prophets without honor" by Strabala and Palacek.

In addition to LIONS DEN the book also describes, in later pages, three levels of government in the United States. They are:

1) The level familiar to the American public. This is the government of Jefferson, Madison, et. al.

2) The "shadow government" of special interests including banks, arms industry, oil trusts, construction cartels, plus the individual eminences like Kissenger, the Rockefellers, and JJ McCloy.

3) The "invisible government" of intelligence operatives of the CIA, defense intelligence, national security agencies, and so on. pp 36-37

For another prospective on the same beast, consider Bill Moyer's comments, from a recent article on Buzzflash by Maureen Farrell:

QUOTE

I: The Secret Government

"The enormous gap between what U.S. leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology." -- Michael Parenti

Years ago, Bill Moyers lent a credible voice to those warning about America's "secret government" . Tracing the advent of our secretive and often grossly unethical national security state to the National Security Act of 1947, Moyers made it clear that Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy lied to the American public about foreign policy, just as Nixon did, showing that any attempt to define this as a liberal versus conservative or Democrat versus Republican issue is well beside the point.

The real dangers to our society aren't our philosophical differences (which actually make us stronger), but the government's secret blowback-inciting activities. When any attempt to tell the truth or unearth agendas is considered unpatriotic, however, or deemed a matter of blind Bush hatred or Democratic political maneuvering, duped citizens become distracted and carp at each other while ignoring ways our Bill of Rights is being dismantled, our coffers are being pilfered and our children's futures are being jeopardized. Most Americans, regardless of their feelings towards this war, care when our soldiers are misused and perhaps now fellow citizens who yelled "Support our troops!" might see that's exactly what anti-war activists were doing.

But as more of us become aware of unseemly events forged in the shadow of unsupervised power, perhaps we'll be less likely to point fingers at each other -- and more likely to hold our government accountable. Between the Dulles brothers' handiwork in Guatemala, the U.S. coup in Iran, Operation Phoenix in Vietnam and the CIA's 40-year partnership with Saddam Hussein, our hidden history has wrought crisis, disaster and war. "Can we have the permanent warfare state and democracy, too?" Moyers asked. "How do the people cry fowl when their liberties are imperiled if public officials can break the rules, lie to us about it and wave the wand of national security to silence us?," he wondered. Saying that "the apparatus of secret power remains intact," he warned, in 1987, that "this is a system easily corrupted as the public grows indifferent again and the press is seduced or distracted. So one day, sadly, we are likely to discover, once again, that while freedom does have enemies in the world, it can also be undermined here at home, in the dark, by those posing as its friends."

(source: http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/07/22.html)

I do not know how to slay the dragon. Voting is important, but as you can see, voting has little impact on the shadow government. The people in the shadows fix the vote the way they want, and continue their business as usual.

[DannyRed]

62. Indeed,

It seems to me that there is, specific to the questions surrounding Iraq and banned weapons and sanctions, a huge and looming issue that has yet to be addressed by the Left in any detail, by Democrats and Liberals at all....and by the GOP HA HA HA HA not.

IF, as is now clear, the testimony of Hussein Kamal is accurate and truthful, AND, as is now clear, the testimonies of people like Scott Ritter are accurate and truthful, it seems that Iraq was essentially fully and completely disarmed as of 1995 or 1996. What was not destroyed by then was degraded, and abandoned programs were left to lie "under the bushes", as it were.

It ALSO appears that western intelligence services, inspectors, and the like KNEW THIS.

And yet the crushing, crippling sanctions were continued.

And yet the inspectors were withdrawn in 1998, and Operation Desert Fox was initiated -- destroying things like water plants, sewage treatment plants, more hospitals, and possibly the last dregs of a defunct weapons program (possibly).

Sooooooo...it seems like these sanctions were continued for AT LEAST 4 years, and probably more like 8 years beyond Iraqi compliance with the terms required for lifting of sanctions.

Soooooo, one might wonder, what EXACTLY are Clinton's motivations for covering Bush wrinkly white lying ass?

Hmmmm...could it be that CLINTON knew that compliance was achieved and that sanctions could be lifted under the agreements and treaties and UN resolutions, BUT REFUSED TO DO SO because the sanctions were providing a helpful whipping post, a prop for the Military Industrial complex and a LOT of cheap oil??

[Tinoire]

68. Notice a pattern...

Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515

August 11, 1999

The President ((Clinton))
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As the principal proponents of last year's Iraq Liberation Art, we are writing to express our dismay over the continued drift in U.S. Policy toward Iraq.

We were greatly encouraged by your decision last October to sign the Iraq Liberation Act, which established as an objective of U.S . foreign policy the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, and we welcomed your pledge last November 15th to work with Congress to implement the Act. We were also pleased with the execution of Operation Desert Fox last December, and the continued commitment of your Administration following the conclusion of that Operation to fully enforce the no- fly zones over northern and southern Iraq.

Since the beginning of this year, however, we have noted signs of a reduced priority in U.S. policy toward Iraq. The last six months have been notable more for what has not happened rather than for what has been achieved. In particular, we are dismayed by the following:

International inspections no longer constrain Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs. Up to and during Operation Desert Fox, Administration officials expended considerable energy explaining to the international community, Congress, and the American people why it was necessary to use force to compel Saddam to submit to comprehensive international inspections. Without inspections, we were told, Saddam could begin to reconstitute his WMD capability within a matter of weeks. Operation Desert Fox was necessary to compel him to stop obstructing inspections. Since Operation Desert Fox, however, there have been no inspections at all. Now, rather than emphasize the danger that Iraq's WMD programs may be reconstituted, Administration officials apparently claim that they have "no evidence" that Saddam is reconstituting his capabilities. In fact, there is considerable evidence that Iraq continues to seek to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction. The whole point of Operation Desert Fox was that we could not afford to wait until Saddam reconstituted his WMD capabilities. If international security could be assured by waiting until we find evidence that Saddam- has developed weapons of mass destruction and responding to the threat at that time, there would have been no need for Operation Desert Fox.

The President
August 11, 1999
Page Two

The Administration is not giving the Iraqi opposition the political support it needs to seriously challenge Saddam. While Administration spokesmen sometimes have expressed support for the Iraq Liberation Act, all too often they distanced themselves from, if not ridiculed, the policy you endorsed last November 15th. In this regard, the views of General Zinni, Commander-in-Chief of the Central Command, are well-known. More recently, a senior State Department official was quoted in the Washington Post saying of the opposition "these are the day-after guys. These are not the guys who are going to put a bullet in the head of Saddam Hussein." In fact, the members of the democratic opposition need to be supported as the "today" guys -- unless it is the intention of the Clinton Administration to send U.S. ground troops in to achieve the U.S. policy objective of removing the Saddam Hussein regime from power. Instead of permitting senior officials to denigrate the opposition, the Administration should be seeking to enhance the opposition's political legitimacy by receiving its officials at the highest level and supporting its efforts to convene meetings inside Iraq, in the United States and elsewhere. The Administration is not giving the Iraqi opposition the material support it needs to seriously challenge Saddam. To achieve the objective of removing Saddam, the opposition will require not only more political support from the United States than it has received so far, but also more material support. To date, of the $8 million appropriated in last year's omnibus appropriations act to assist the opposition, less than $500,000 has been used to support activities carried out by the opposition. Most of the rest of this money is being spent on such things as academic conferences, community outreach projects, and conflict management programs that will do little or nothing to expedite the demise of Saddam's regime. Notwithstanding these expenditures, we understand that as much as $1 million of this aid may be returned to the Treasury at the end of this fiscal year. Further, the opposition has received no assistance whatsoever from the $97 million in military assistance made available under the Iraq Liberation Act. The Administration has begun to plan an initial drawdown under the Iraq Liberation Act, but has signaled Saddam that he has nothing to fear by emphasizing that the drawdown will be "nonlethal" in nature. Reportedly it will include photocopiers, computers, and fax machines, as well as training in such areas as accounting and flood management. In providing authority for military drawdown, it was our intention to train and equip a force dedicated to bringing democracy to Iraq.
The Administration is not willing to deliver assistance to the opposition inside Iraq. In addition to withholding from the Opposition the most useful forms of assistance, the Administration has ruled out delivering assistance to the opposition inside Iraq. Delivering such assistance inside Iraq might violate U.N. sanctions, we are told. U.N. sanctions cannot present a legal problem under U.S. law, inasmuch as the Iraq Liberation Act authorizes the provision of assistance under the act "notwithstanding any other

The President
August 11, 1999
Page Three

provision of law." To find a legal problem under international law, it is necessary to overlook the fact that the purpose of U.N. sanctions is to weaken Saddam. It is further necessary to ignore the U.N. Security Council resolutions, including 688 and 949, that authorize action to protect the Kurdish and other minorities in Iraq and provide the foundation under international law for our continued enforcement of no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. If it does not violate U.N. sanctions for coalition aircraft to bomb targets inside Iraq, it should not violate UN. sanctions to deliver munitions and other assistance to the opposition for use against targets inside Iraq. And certainly the delivery of non-lethal forms of assistance inside Iraq, especially humanitarian assistance, should not violate U.N. sanctions.

The Administration is, not willing to give appropriate security assurances to anti-Saddam Iraqis, including the Kurds and Shi'a. The Kurdish and Shi'a population of Iraq has paid a horrible price for resisting Saddam's rule. To provide a measure of protection to these groups, the northern and southern no-fly zones were established in 1991 and 1992. More recently, Secretary Albright extended U.S. security assurances to the Kurds last September in order to facilitate the reconciliation agreement between Kurdish groups. On July 7th of this year, the Executive Council of the Iraqi National Congress asked the Administration for additional security assurances in order to make possible an Iraqi National Assembly meeting in northern Iraq. The opposition did not ask for a commitment of U.S. ground forces or other specific guarantees. Nevertheless, in a letter dated July 29th, Acting Secretary of State Strobe Talbott rejected this request. We believe this decision should be reconsidered. The United States already is committed to providing security for the Kurds and Shi'a of Iraq. To specifically deny a request from the opposition for assurances that would, in their words, "show that the United States is committed to a change of government in Iraq, " sends a dangerous signal. This sign of irresolution can only tempt Saddam to once again move against the Kurds and Shia.
We are dismayed by these developments. We do not believe, however, that it is too late to reverse the drift in U.S. policy and regain the momentum that our nation had last year. We respectfully propose an action plan consisting of the following four key elements:

1. Set a deadline for the reinstitution of meaningful international inspections of Saddam's WMD programs in the near future, while ensuring that Saddam is not rewarded for complying with his international obligations. Make clear that serious consequences will ensue if the deadline is not met. This could mean, among other things, further military action against WMD-related facilities and other targets central to Saddam's hold on power, or expansion of the existing no-fly zones into no-drive zones.

The President
August 11, 1999
Page Four

2. Provide enhanced security assurances to anti-Saddam Iraqis along the lines proposed in the letter of July 7, 1999, from the Executive Council of the Iraqi National Congress. Not only is this the right thing to do, but it will reverse the dangerous signal that was sent by the Administration's initial response to the July 7th letter from the opposition.

3. Support the effort of the Iraqi National Congress to hold a National Assembly meeting in the near future at the location of their choice, including northern Iraq or Washington, D.C. Urge other countries to send observers as a sign of support, and facilitate their attendance.

4. Immediately begin a program of meaningful assistance to the designated opposition groups. This must include both material assistance and training under the Iraq Liberation Act. The opposition has an immediate need for such items as communications equipment, uniforms, boots, and bivouac gear. In addition, the necessary equipment should be provided for direct broadcasting into Baghdad of FM radio and television signals from opposition-controlled sites in northern Iraq. Training may best be provided outside Iraq, but there is no reason not to deliver material assistance inside Iraq. Over time, we must be prepared to deliver both lethal military training and lethal material assistance.

With these steps, we believe that our nation can begin to recover the ground that has been lost since last year. We stand prepared to offer whatever legislative support you require in order to achieve our shared objective of promoting the emergence of a peaceful, democratic government in Iraq.

Sincerely,

Trent Lott

Joseph I. Lieberman

Jesse Helms

J. Robert Kerrey

Richard C. Shelby

Sam Brownback

Benjamin A. Gilman

Howard L. Berman

http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm





--------------

January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

--------------------------------------------



September 20, 2001
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for “a broad and sustained campaign” against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.” We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world” and “get it by its branch and root.” We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.”

In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century” successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,” we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget

A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.

Sincerely,
William Kristol
Richard V. Allen Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett
Rudy Boshwitz Jeffrey Bergner Eliot Cohen Seth Cropsey
Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Jeffrey Gedmin
Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson Eli S. Jacobs
Michael Joyce Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Jeane Kirkpatrick
Charles Krauthammer John Lehman Clifford May Martin Peretz
Richard Perle Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Richard H. Shultz Henry Sokolski Stephen J. Solarz Vin Weber Leon Wieseltier Marshall Wittmann
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm


http://www.dopcampaign.org/

Because we have a lot of Karma to start cleaning up...

[Wonder]

94. a lot of Karma to start cleaning up

I'll say!! as does most in the world...

[ze_dscherman]

78. There's even more

I agree with you, but there are more questions that need be answered.

Could it be as well that some people in intelligence were giving false/distorted evidence in order to follow an agenda that needed to put down Iraq?

Who else did benefit?

And why was the U.K. playing hand in hand with the U.S. in bombing the No-fly-zones and keeping up sanctions?

[Tinoire]

88. Maybe because

the sun never sets on the British empire?

21st century continuation of Britain's colonialism? Right down to the Israel/Palestine conflict that is NOT helping at all to put it mildly.

Oh and the answer to your first question is a SOUND RESOUNDING YES!

Plus the fact that OSP, feeding a LOT of this intel was staffed by POLITICAL STAFFERS! Not even intel people! And the second branch of the OSP was being run straight out of Ariel Sharon's office.

Anglo domination of the world is what this is all about. THIS is the New World Order...

I'm so tired. Good-night and get back to you tomorrow if that's not enough... and/or you want to continue...

Peace

[Wonder]

96. the pax the pax and the pax

american, brittanica, israelica --- rokach refers to the Israelica very messianic the play was back in the 50's-60's back in the 80's on the Israel side as well. They never went away is why they are all back with a vengence!

[Tinoire]

98. Don't take me there. Please

My awakening began with the Isreali/Palestinian conflict which I thought, 2 years ago, was the number 1 threat to world peace. Jerusalem and the 33rd with all of us, regardless of religion, being played for simpletons. Good-night. Gonna go to sleep wishing for sugar-plums.

[Wonder]

101. well I am not sure by take you there where there is

when I say they I was refering to all three pax's not just Israel. I think you might have misunderstood me. Besides I am not here to take anyone anywhere.

[Tinoire]

89. Maybe because

the sun never sets on the British empire?

21st century continuation of Britain's colonialism? Right down to the Israel/Palestine conflict that is NOT helping at all to put it mildly.

Oh and the answer to your first question is a SOUND RESOUNDING YES!

Plus the fact that OSP, feeding a LOT of this intel was staffed by POLITICAL STAFFERS! Not even intel people! And the second branch of the OSP was being run straight out of Ariel Sharon's office.

Anglo domination of the world is what this is all about. THIS is the New World Order...

I'm so tired. Good-night and get back to you tomorrow if that's not enough... and/or you want to continue...

Peace

[Wonder]

91. that is why all this partison affiliation is nonsense

even all the other political left progressive liberal. these labels don't mean shit. Whatever this ride is, it has made it very clear that the candidate must be identified by a hell of lot more than just their party affilliations the democrats even more so for all the complicity they have exhibited throughout the years

Shame on Shame on... we could have gotten much of the core mob here more than once. Look at the catastrophe almost that this is to get clear and still so many that I meet I can not even speak to them about the PNAC they don't even know about that.

You sound way more positive than I. maybe it's all that gentle talking you keep mentioning. I have come to proper terminology can go a long way to freeing up the defenses wherein you can actually access a bit more freedom to address the harder points. I have found this to be true.

what more READING till I am made CROSSEYED I have been reading.

[tedzbear]

63. That just goes to show that Left in America is really Right!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not surprised by Clinton's statement in light of his own imperialistic leanings. Even so, he is being quite the gentleman considering these Repugs who he is forgiving went to any length to impeach him even if it meant indicting him over a blow-job!

I read somewhere that a right winger in Holland said that it was easy to be an ultra conservative and be against the war in Iraq because an ultra conservative in Holland was actually quite a bit to the left of a typical American Democrat!!!

I think that's the truth. I am a long time Democrat myself who will defect to the Greens if Dean loses the nomination. I find the breadth of the political spectrum in America to be extremely narrow.

[chadm]

144. we don't need gentlemen

we need leadership. I'm with you.

[Lostnote03]

67. Geeesh!!!

.......Damn you Bill......Keep your pompous, self-rightous opinion off of the airwaves when you know better than most that it will undermine the Dems battle....."every President makes mistakes".....yea whatever, lets compare your juvenile actions in the WH to a fully mobilized invasion on the precept of lies.....Quit providing cover for your wifes "yes" vote by somehow legitimizing Presidential deceit.....This is fucking horrible!!!

[1984ever]

69. I Feel Like...

one of our star players just kicked a goal for the other team.

[copithorne]

70. I adore Bill Clinton

and don't know what to make of this.

Except that he's thinking about his own experience bombing the Sudanese aspirin factory.

[schultzee]

172. Hey, he sold out his core support to NAFTA! Wake up!

He was republican light and he sold us out.

[Lauren2882]

73. Good analogy

Yeah, that sounds about right to me.

Although I do think we need to stay optimistic (see my other post above).

[dfong63]

82. what he said,

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president."

and Clinton immediately proved that his dictum applies to ex-presidents too.

[ahimsa]

102. He's saying the president made a mistake

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. You can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up. "
Clinton is goading Bush about his failure to admit HE made the mistake.

[psychopomp]

75. BC is just as Machavellian as Rove

He has a heart, though, whereas * does not.

I never cheered for the "Big Dawg" on this forum and was flamed for asking people to cut the rah-rahing for BC ('I sure wish the "Big Dawg" was back!!'). I hope this is an eye-opener for those types.

edit: changed * to "Rove" in subject line b/c * wouldn't have the intellect to actually have a "stragegy"

[ChillEB]

80. One positive about this...

Is that his statement might get people to ponder the fact that it may well be true that his 1998 missile attacks actually finished the job of eliminating Saddam's last remaining WMD. Logically, he would've been hitting a lot of the places that the Inspectors weren't being let into under the inspection regime, right?

Just trying to find something to be happy about. All in all, Bill's popping off with this garbage doesn't do much to lift us Dem's spirits, thats for damn sure.

[Tinoire]

92. Chill, Chill My friend!

There were NO WMDs! If they ever existed, they were LONG gone and everyone knew it!


Clinton said: "No WMD's? No War!" (oh and for the icing on that cake google Madeleine Albright Sandy Berger OSU when Clinton was considering giving in to their pressure/demands)

They said: "No War? We will bring you DOWN!"


And slick, slick Willy dared them on, thinking they'd never find anything of substance on him- but they found out about that blow job. He wasn't slick enough!

But damn, come to think of it. For the first time ever, I am wondering if the people who said Monica was a plant, a trap, might not have been on to something.

Reminder to self- check dates of "let's go to war" letters, OSU, and blow-job. See it they add up and then start digging.

Peace

[reprobate]

166. Monica was a plant

I agree. Do you remember hearing of the russian warning to clinton that the right wing was planning on using a plant to bring down his presidency by using his past predilictions for dallying to put him in front of the press. And they knew it would work.

My worry is that as more and more of the public discover for themselves that there is NO "governemtn of the people, by the people and for the people" anymore, there will be those who are disillusioned enough that they turn to guerilla tactics to remove those they see as responsible for the treason that has been brought on this country.

Wouldn't that be a kick in the head for all the neocons? Suddenly, the terrorists will be home grown, and will be hunting the neocons for a change.

Perhaps I should not be as negative as that, but the thought keeps repeating in my head that Ben Franklin was right about eventually the country will fail because the people have become so corrupt. Old wise Ben was holding up a mirror for us, but we refuse to look.

[Wonder]

178. second that

monica being a plant I mean. I always felt that inituitively, though at that time I did not necessarily come across much documentation on it.

"the terrorists will be home grown, and will be hunting the neocons for a change."

and on the other side of the coin on the ground in the US are foreign assassins that may be on the alert in the event that would happen.

[schultzee]

181. Monica was only sex. George caused people to die. A difference.

And our boy Bill sold the middle class and working class down river with NAFTA. Because of that I really dislike him. He stole the American dream and gave it to the Corps just like a Republican Jackel.

[Tinoire]

186. I remember that so vaguely, so faintly

that I might as well not remember that. Do you have a link or anything? Original Russian is ok.

The Russians ever warned about 9-11... when, less than 2 months before 9-11, Dr. Tatyana Koryagina (senior research fellow in the Institute of Macroeconomic Researches subordinated to the Russian Ministry of Economic Development (Minekonom)), warned the Russian Duma to cash out all their dollars immediately. "The main theme of the Duma hearings was the rapidly approaching economic crash of the United States." A google on Tatyana Koryagina (double alt spelling Tatiana Korjagina) still brings up articles. Sadly, I lost most of my bookmarks but you can still find some.

-----

Excerpt w/ partial interview:

The hearings focused on preparing recommendations for President Putin as to what Russia should to do to soften the consequences of this coming catastrophe.

Pravda also detailed its own interview with Dr. Koryagina.

Here is an excerpt:

Pravda: All the participants at the hearings stated that America is a huge financial pyramid which will crash soon. Still, it is hard to understand how this could happen in the first and richest country of the world – without a war, without missile or bomb strikes?

Koryagina: Besides bombs and missiles, there are other kinds of weaponry, much more destructive ones. ...

Pravda: Well, economic theory. But how it is possible for you to give an exact date – August 19?

Koryagina: The U.S. is engaged in a mortal economic game. The known history of civilization is merely the visible part of the iceberg. There is a shadow economy, shadow politics and also a shadow history, known to conspirologists. There are forces acting in the world, unstoppable for countries and even continents.

Pravda: Just these forces intend to smash America on August 19?

Koryagina: There are international "super-state" and "super-government" groups. In accordance with tradition, the mystical and religious components play extremely important roles in human history. One must take into account the shadow economy, shadow politics and the religious component, while predicting the development of the present financial situation. Pravda: Still, I don't understand what could be done to this giant country , whose budget is calculated in the trillions of dollars.

Koryagina: It is possible to do anything to the U.S. ... whose total debt has reached $26 trillion. Generally, the Western economy is at the boiling point now. Shadow financial actives of $300 trillion are hanging over the planet. At any moment, they could fall on any stock exchange and cause panic and crash. The recent crisis in Southeast Asia, which touched Russia, was a rehearsal.

Pravda: What is the sense of smashing just America?

Koryagina: The U.S. has been chosen as the object of financial attack because the financial center of the planet is located there. The effect will be maximal. The strike waves of economic crisis will spread over the planet instantly and will remind us of the blast of a huge nuclear bomb.

<snip>

Koryagina: Recommendations, compiled by the Duma Commission of Economic Politics after the recent Duma hearings, offer instruction on what should be done to escape the consequences of a world crisis inspired by a financial catastrophe in the U.S. This document will be sent – or has already been sent – to President Putin.

Pravda: What should Russian citizens do?

Koryagina: They should start changing their dollars for rubles. President Putin and the Russian Central Bank are already taking the necessary healthy measures. There are high chances that after 19 August the ruble will become a very good currency.

Pravda: Why 19 August, say, and not the 21st?

Koryagina: Some fluctuation in this date is possible. Serious forces are acting against THOSE WHO ARE NOW PREPARING THE ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES . August, with very high probability, will bring the financial catastrophe to the U.S. ... The last 10 days of August have especial importance from a religious-sensible point of view.

<snip>

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/16/103951.shtml





http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/16/103951.shtml

[tlb]

99. My posts saying the Clintons will sabotage the 04 dem candidate

got me flames. Still disagree that their only concern is electing Hillary in 08 ?

I'll say it again, the Clintons are the worst disaster to befall the democrat party since the Civil War. Just because republicans said they were corrupt immoral sleaze doesn't mean they weren't corrupt immoral sleaze.

[Noordam]

103. Well that is one less Clinton book sold

.

Because he never can back down from this statement and the Repugs will use it over and over.

[kayell]

105. Meet the old boss (same as the new boss)

It's time for a real change in DC.

[CWebster]

109. I think, there's a change in the weather

I think the weather, is bound to change..

I think, it's a change for the better, and
it will brighten up my day...

Thanks to Ray Davies of the Kinks. ;-)

[Enraged_Ape]

113. Why don't the Dems just admit that Bush is the greatest president ever?

The Dem leadership should just all come out before the cameras, smiling and holding hands, and testify to their undying affection and allegiance to the Holy Chimp, the greatest President in US history and arguably the most masterful leader in the history of Western Civilization. Then they should all join in a united show of support for his brother Jeb to take office in 2008, followed by Neil in 2016 (after the statute of limitations has run out).

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Do the Clintons believe that the Bushies and their minions have EVER done, or will ever do, anything for them?

[Barry_Goldwater]

115. Don't Give up Enraged_Ape!

YES, let's try the reverse psychology thing, and if that doesn't work then we'll try something else!

[iam]

116. Clinton is a masochist.

For kissing up to his attackers and a sadist for selling out everyone else who voted for him.
Bill, take your "I'm sorry" liberalism and shove it up your ass.

[newsguyatl]

119. i, too,

am done with clinton now... this is just too much...

he's shameless...

[hezekkia]

125. nah

I have to admit my first my reaction was, "what the hell is he doing?!!!!!" But on further thought, maybe what Clinton's saying is actually pretty smart. First of all, while we in our own zeal maximize the importance of "uraniumgate," the fact is that it really wasn't Bush who wrote the speech-- he's a delegator, and probably hasn't read an intelligence briefing in his entire presidency. Thus, the story isn't going to get much mroe traction for us. Presidents are always going to be crucified for the mistakes of their staffs. In Bush's admin, the "mistakes" will be many simply because of the dishonesty, conniving, and cunning of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the other goons. Second, mistakes are going to happen, especially with intelligence and war. Clinton's years weren't exactly perfect (Somalia, bombing Chinese Embassy, etc.) Clinton probably recognizes that uraniumgate has run its course. I really believe the story is next to dead. By killing this one story, which is NOT going to harm Bush much more, it opens the way for the press to harp on the OTHER cases of lying and deceit. If the press would stop harping on "the now-infamous 16 words," it could instead focus on how Bush smeared Wilson's wife, how the oil documents are suddenly appearing (and what they imply), how there WAS no al Quaeda link, how we refuse to allow international troops because we don't want to give up oil...the list goes on. I think by shutting the door on the uranium flap, we'll actually get more traction in the long run because we'll begin to see all of these other nasty elements of the Bush Admin's Iraq policy. It's the PATTERN that is going to damn Bush in '04. anyway, just my $.02. And remember...Clinton probably supported this war, even if only on humanitarian/chemical weapon grounds.

[cap]

121. Bill is setting up Bush...

awww... this is just a small mistake....c'mon come clean on it... what's your problem... it's only a little thing, isnt it....(Knowing full well that it isn't)...

Dont underestimate Bill... He is giving Bush the rope to hang himself without the Dems making the same mistake as Gingrich. Of course, Bush won't say I made a small mistake.

[leesa]

123. Well that takes care of that! Bush is off the hook.

Why couldn't he just keep his damn mouth shut!

[tomp]

124. paging blm.

you were saying something about clinton being lied to by the cia and letting other dems know about it. spin this.

[blm]

130. You twisted what I said...

When I said the CIA gave him bad info when he was in office, I also said he shared that bad info with other Dems. Check out the thread by radwriter about Rumsfeld feeding bad Iraq info to Clinton back in 98.

Clinton would think it unlikely that he was given planted info by the CIA. Hell...look how long he trusted Louis Freeh. Clinton's blind spot was always giving his enemies more credit as human beings than they deserved.

[tomp]

138. that's not what i thought you said.

i thought you said he shared that he was lied to. are you really saying that clinton still doesn't know the real score, that he was lied to and still doesn't know it?

so clinton thinks iraq has nukes? in spite of the absence of evidence? he still does not question the info he got from rumsfeld and/or the cia or the fbi in light of the niger revelations (among other things), and other aspects of bush's madly spinning rush to war? you would make him out to be an idiot and we both know he is not that.

try this paradigm: bill clinton and the democratic leadership want iraq's oil as badly as the repubs, but each party has different methods of going about getting it, and one hand washes the other. seems to fit the facts.

[tomp]

126. impeach bush for bj...

...by clinton.

[bushisanidiot]

127. President Clinton is All Class If You Ask Me

The repukes are foaming at the mouth to point at the Clintons as being nothing but partisan liberals.. Bill just took the bat out of AWOL's hands..

[RapidCreek]

136. Yea...so?

What the hell is wrong with being a partison liberal unless of course you are a Neo-Con? For cryin out loud....we NEED some partison liberals. We need some Dems with a set of nuts....not a bunch of modycoddlin meally mouthed pimps!!!

RC

[9215]

158. Agreed

See my post below, and took a swipe back at em'.

[mac56]

128. I'm enormously disappointed right now.

I wish he had just kept his damn mouth shut.

[Q]

132. Clinton is part of the problem...not the solution...

- Looks like old Bill gave George the 'escape clause' he was looking for.

- Screw both of em.

[tomp]

131. will any dem (candidate?) stand up and say this is wrong?

[Nancy Waterman]

133. Bush hasn't admitted to a mistake

Bush is blaming everyone else. Clinton is saying it was Bush's "mistake". He s saying it like it is no big deal and we all do it. But he is blaming Bush.

[tomp]

165. a "mistake" we should let go.

if you don't see the difference you're part of the problem.

[HFishbine]

140. Paving the way for Hillary

Bill is providing cover for Hillary's pro-war vote. Simple.

[schultzee]

147. Well Bill, why don't you just kiss him and kick all the democrats?

You were the best republican president we democrats ever had. Thanks to you, Bill Clinton, we now have NAFTA, and now even the tech jobs are leaving. Just shut up.

[schultzee]

Well Bill, why don't you just kiss him and kick all the democrats?

You were the best republican president we democrats ever had. Thanks to you, Bill Clinton, we now have NAFTA, and now even the tech jobs are leaving. Just shut up.

[schultzee]

148. Well Bill, why don't you just kiss him and kick all the democrats?

You were the best republican president we democrats ever had. Thanks to you, Bill Clinton, we now have NAFTA, and now even the tech jobs are leaving. Just shut up.

[jfkennedy]

151. Was it a lie?

The real question should be was it a lie? (Words that deceived the public). It seems to be a fact that it was a lie the 16 words in the speech. Now that it has been proven that what he did say was a lie regardless if he intended to lie or not, it was still a deception a misleading of the truth to the American people that led us into and oil war in Iraq. As President of the United States he should of known that what he said in the speech was not a lie. That is his job his responsibility to truthfully administer the county according to the constitution of the United States. If he was a real man he would admit his mistake and resign.

So if he wrote the speech and it was false and misleading it was a lie. Now he is saying he did not intend to lie.But if he did not indend to lie why did he not look into the facts of what he was saying in the speech? That is what he should of done but knowingly failed to do.He cannot blame the CIA because it was his (resident Bush?s speech), that Bush wrote.

He had and has a responsibility to be informed of the things that he would put in his speech. It was his speech not the CIA chief or whomever. The point is he should of known that what he was saying in the speech was false and misleading. And his failing to look into a possibility that what he was saying was false is in itself a lie, and act of fraud, thus and impeachable act. He is not even admitting that he should of known that what he was saying in his speech was a lie, and wrong and it won't happen again.

I would say the Bush speech is an impeachable act. I am not a lawyer. Where are all the liberal lawyers when we need them.

[David Zephyr]

154. Clinton Throws Cold Wet Blanket Onto Bush's Burning WMD Story

Thumbs down to Bill Clinton.

:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

[9215]

157. He is just trying to put an end to the finger

pointing game that the cons (short for conservatives) do so well in with a corporate press to back them up.

I never take Clinton's actions at face value, nearly everything he does is planned for effect.

IMO, Clinton wants to move the issue of Iraq along and get people focused on the "solution"--how to hammer out a democracy-- and he knows that this will make Bush look even more inept than he does now. Especially when the discussion moves toward how to establish a democracy in Iraq, a real democracy; the kind with a sound voting/electoral system and the people's voice being heard and a free Press......You listening Dubya, "is" you learnin' anything? hee, hee, hee.

I'm sure Dubya and Co. will be able to provide insight into how to accomplish these things. :eyes: :bounce:

[young_at_heart]

159. He is saying, "It's no big deal"

It's almost as if he WANTS Bush to succeed in winning approval!

[nolabels]

160. Let me just say I feel vindicated about anything I posted about him :0

"He is what he is, you can't change that, got to know, ya can't change that captain"

"all right scotty, forget it, beam me up" :crazy:

[demgrrrll]

164. This is a chess game, not a sprint and sometimes a move that does not

look right gets you where you are going. I am amused by the reactionary element on these boards. One false move brother and you're out, fyou forever buddy. I quess everyone understands he isn't in the position (granted partially of his own making) of going on national tvee
and saying someone lied and needs to be impeached. He could have said nothing which might have been preferable but what he did say was important and starts a chipping away process. The people that are the most wedded to this character portray his as Uncle Sam with his balled up fist, a mighty guy, larger than life, certainly not someone who makes mistakes. If he admits he made a mistake, which I would bet he would never do he, loses some of that aura of whatever it is that holds part of the population in thrall. Drip Drip Drip Chip Chip Chip. The election is still far enough away that you don't have to use a cannon at this point and I'm sure Bill knows more than we do about what's around the bend.

[nolabels]

170. Yea right, I got a bridge I need to sell also

In ways he might have as much to loose as * over Iraq. I like to look at why they are playing game rather than see if they are holding the winning hand in this round. I have a lot of beefs about the way this guy has done things. He continues on selling the Democrats down the river for his special fleeting moments in history.

If you remember correctly he was the guy that sat on hands or worse when Iraq had sanctions levied against them for eight years. That not what they did with them warlords over in China. Saddam might have been an evil man but that is not a reason to let hundreds of thousands children die. That Albright character only can come out say she thinks it was worth it. People that instigate policies like that should be locked up also.

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=247
(snip)
What Iraqis think
by Peter Kellner , Channel 4 News
July 16th, 2003

Two in three fear being attacked in the street. Most think we went to war to grab Iraq’s oil.

Yet despite these deep concerns, only a minority oppose the Americans and British invasion, and as few as one in eight want the invaders to leave the country straight away.

Channel 4 News and the Spectator have commissioned the first comprehensive independent survey in Baghdad since the conflict.

Among the findings of the YouGov poll was that Iraqis want the occupying troops to restore normality quickly and then hand the country back to the Iraqis.

In effect the people of Baghdad are telling the Americans: “You say you came to make our lives better. You need to prove you can – and fast.”

Altogether YouGov questioned 798 people last week in all parts of Baghdad. We cannot pretend our figures are perfect. There are no reliable demographic statistics with which to compare our data.

However, we sought to interview broadly equal numbers of men and women in all parts of the city, to obtain a wide spread of age groups, religious affiliations and social backgrounds.
(snip)

[dolo amber]

183. Slick WIllie

has that name for a reason. He was and is one of the most media-savvy politicians the world has ever seen, I can't imagine this being anything other than a calculated move on his part. I totally agree while on the surface this feels like a cold slap in the face it's in all likelyhood his way of saying what we all already know... the emperor is wearing no clothes.

ps - i'm a DU newbie, just want to say i find it refreshing that there are still people out there with a shred of hope... :toast:

[rman]

174. confusing bio/chem with nuclear, happens all the time

And such confusion makes it hard to recognize forged documents, even if people tell you they are forged.

bad move, Clinton

[janx]

176. HANG ON A SECOND--before everyone goes nuts....!

I listened to Clinton's comments twice. Read the entire transcript for yourselves. To me, this is the important part, the part that every low-rent media pundit and knee-jerk political partisan has ignored the whole time:

"Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it," he said.

Don't you see what Clinton is pointing out here?

[nolabels]

182. Not really, maybe you could enlighten us

http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/operation_desert_fox.htm
(snip)
Operation Desert Fox: Military Goals Achieved
Washington Report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Gordon I. Peterson

Senior U.S. defense officials and military commanders praised the performance of U.S. and British forces participating in December's four-day aerial attack on Iraq, claiming the air strikes were highly successful in achieving the operation's limited military goals. At a 19 December Pentagon press briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen emphasized that Iraq's ability to deliver chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons had been degraded. He also said that Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors had been reduced.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry H. Shelton echoed Cohen's assessment. "I am confident that the carefully planned and superbly executed combat operations of the past four days have degraded Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs, his ability to deliver weapons, and his ability to militarily threaten the security of this strategically important Persian Gulf region," Shelton told reporters. The JCS chairman said the U.S. combatant commander responsible for the planning and execution of the aerial assault, Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command, was of the same opinion.

There were no U.S. or British combat casualties or aircraft losses--an exceptional achievement, in Zinni's view. "Even in peacetime, exercises of this scale can be dangerous and can be very, very trying; to do this without any casualties in the environment our forces faced was truly remarkable," Zinni said at a 21 December Pentagon press briefing.

More than 300 U.S. and British war-planes, spearheaded by U.S. Navy and Marine Corps squadrons operating at night from the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise during initial missions on 16 December, flew over 650 strike and strike-support sorties against approximately 100 Iraqi military and military-related targets. Ten ships of the U.S. Fifth Fleet launched more than 325 Tomahawk cruise missiles, bolstered with an additional punch from more than 90 cruise missiles launched from U.S. Air Force B-52 bombers. Thousands of U.S. ground troops, augmented by hundreds of special operations forces, also were deployed to protect Kuwait or to carry out other unspecified missions.
(snip)

[robbedvoter]

177. In the bigger picture this is far less serious than presented here

I didn't sleep a night after reading this. Then I got the news about further CIA disclosures coming up - sure Clinton knew of these. So, I say: I am ready to move on from the SOTU: time to get to the 9.11 treason (read the New Yorker - how bush ignores Syria's help on AlQuaeda). Since you are still on the topic (and the habitual Clinton/dem bashers keep it alive), I had to join and post: in the bigger picture, the remarks are merely strategic and matk a point for us: "BUSH MADE A MISTAKE" (never said before). Onwards and upwards from here.

[shimmergal]

180. Clinton is primarily a problem-solver, not an ideologue.

So his focus on "what to do now?" Where do we go from here?" is
understandable.

Personally I disagree that it's time to "let go," but heck, his political skills are far greater than mine. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this answer.

And from his own experience he knows that once the press's hue-and-cry over a scandal reaches a certain volume, neither public opinion nor the pronouncements of politicians are going to deter the media.
Again, I find it hard to believe the press is at that point yet with Iraqgate, but if the U.S. continues losing soldiers, we'll reach it.
I read Clinton's comment as a cautionary note to Dems to let the media carry most of the water on this issue, to minimize the backblow against the party.