Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Link
The liberal historical revisionists would have you believe that George Bush and his cronies came up with the idea of invading Iraq before 9/11. Well, that's true... in a way. The appeal to Clinton is not intended to be a statement about the quality of the intelligence for invading Iraq.
What this story does prove, however, is that those who hate Bush for fabricating the justification for the Iraq war are... hating Bush for irrational reasons. Hence, this thread.
|
You've ignored the following because it destroys your argument. I apologize for posting these quotes again....in the same forum topic, but I know of no better examples of what "holdouts" at this late date, must ignore in order to use "the appeal to Clinton". 26 months after Clinton's speech, his CIA director made it clear that Saddam did not even pose a threat to his neighbors, and that the "no fly zones" were achieving the intended effect. Two weeks later, Powell, the general who had prosecuted the '91 gulf war against Iraq, when he served as chairman of the joint chiefs, reiterated even more persuasively, what Tenet had said. Five months after that, Rice again backed both earlier statements.
There is never a response to these quotes, presumably because there is no convincing way to refute the assessments made in each one. They are consistent in that all three....CIA Director Tenet, Sec'y of State Powell, and NS Advisor Rice....<b>in a time period that began with Tenet, 26 months after your citation, continuing to Rice's statements, 31 months after Clinton's speech,</b> presumably after the new Bush administration had more time to assess the "threat" or, in this case....lack of one....that Saddam's Iraq actually posed:
Quote:
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
07 February 2001
Text: CIA's Tenet on Worldwide Threat 2001
.............IRAQ
Mr. Chairman, in Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam's confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam's multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility.
High oil prices and Saddam's use of the oil-for-food program have helped him manage domestic pressure. The program has helped meet the basic food and medicine needs of the population. High oil prices buttressed by substantial illicit oil revenues have helped Saddam ensure the loyalty of the regime's security apparatus operating and the few thousand politically important tribal and family groups loyal.
<b>There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability........</b>
|
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............<b>but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction.</b> We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. <b>And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................</b>
|
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html
...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
<b>But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............</b>
|
politicophile, the statements above seem to speak in unison, they were made, beginning 26 months after the Clinton "smoking gun" speech that you cited. <b>Do the 2001 statements of Tenet, Powell, or Rice, indicate to you that a few months later, this would be a logical "followup" reported about the Bush administration, just 40 days after Rice spoke to CNN?:</b>
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml
(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
|
or this....in March 2002?
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...mep.saddam.tm/
First Stop, Iraq
By Michael Elliott and James Carney
Monday, March 24, 2003 Posted: 5:49 PM EST (2249 GMT)
How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order
"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
<b>It was March 2002,</b> and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.
|
or this...nine months after Rice's CNN appearance....
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that <b>after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed.</b> The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week..............
|
Even Wolfowitz, in this "pitch" for the proposed invasion, did not deny that the existing Iraq "containment" policy had been effective. He seemed to think that invading Iraq would save money......
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100723.html
Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003..............
|
So today, politicophile, we have a president who has used military, "captive audiences", this past friday, and again on monday, to provide forums for incendiary speeches where he ranted about the damage that the dissent of an opposition political party was causing to the war "effort". When you combine this unprecedented, improper exploitation of our troops, in a time of Bush's "war", for partisan political purposes, with his 36 percent approval rating, down from a high of 90 percent, and the voluminous record of facts and quotes that Bush....and you must ignore, as a prerequisite for speeches like he makes to troops, and like the content of your preceding post, isn't it time to consider that, if Bush is mostly correct about who is "attempting tp rewrite history", he would be able to make public appearances in front of a wider audience, and his poll numbers might be a tad higher? The facts in our clash of opinions speak for themselves....the "threat" posed by Saddam was manufactured by the Bush administration, the spectacle of Bush trying to conduct "business as usual" while ignoring the loss of his own credibility and the shift in public opinion, is a fascinating one to watch. Why not come around from the back of the TV, pull up a chair, dip your hand into the popcorn bowl, and observe the failure to sell a campaign of lies....<b>instead of rooting for it?</b>