Why Bush’s Case On Iraq Was Different From Clinton’s (good summary)

[rodeodance]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/07/bush-clinton-iraq

Why Bush’s Case On Iraq Was Different From Clinton’s

The Bush administration’s talking point these days in defending its use of false pre-war intelligence is to blame Clinton. Scott McClellan said last week that critics “might want to start with looking at the previous administration.” Sen. George Allen (R-VA) repeated the mantra on CNN this Sunday: “ecognize that even the Clinton administration thought Saddam posed a threat.” And Bill Kristol writes in the Weekly Standard that the White House should “fight back” by pointing out that Clinton administration officials “believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.”

To justify the war against Iraq, the Bush administration made a number of exaggerated and misleading claims about the Iraqi threat that went far beyond the public statements issued by the Clinton administration. Going beyond the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration made a unique case on two specific fronts to justify the war: the supposed connections to al Qaeda and the Iraqi nuclear threat........

"See the evidence below":

LIES ABOUT IRAQ/AL QAEDA LINKS

What Bush Said: “Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” <10/7/02>

What They Knew: The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported in February 2002 that the source of the claim – a detained al Qaeda terrorist — “could not name any Iraqis involved, any chemical or biological material used or where the training occurred. As a result, ‘it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers.’” ......




LIES ABOUT NUCLEAR THREAT.....(more)

[Crunchy Frog]

1. Bottom line is...

Whatever the intelligence or beliefs were about Iraq's weapons or military capability, Bush invaded ostensibly on the basis of it, and Clinton DIDN'T. End of story.