# Bill Clinton gives GW Bush a pass on the Iraq-uranium flap **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 23, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442 "2003-07-23T18:20:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/21 "2003-07-24T03:10:12Z")
They’re gonna call it “super-sizing”. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/22 "2003-07-24T03:26:38Z")
So now Bill Clinton is part of the conspiracy too, huh. Everyone’s got a hidden agenda, no one’s telling the truth. Right? In the same interview, Bill Clinton also said that they knew there were plenty of WMD unaccounted for when the inspectors left in 1998 - Clinton’s bombing was an attempt to get them, and they didn’t know how successful it was. Bill Clinton also supported the war on Iraq, and he had access to the same intelligence Bush has. So he must be lying too. The only people telling the truth are the guys trying to get elected president, and the far left with an axe to grind. Everyone else is a dupe or a liar. Uh huh. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/23 "2003-07-24T03:37:40Z")
Also, it shouldn’t be assumed that the deficit would be any smaller sans the war. This Admin is as determined as any normal Republican admin to gut the Federal government to as great an extent as it will be allowed, in order to limit any future growth - on the non-military side, of course. Deficits are as necessary to this strategy as unemployment is to the other part of their strategy - cowing the ordinary worker into utter submission. It also is a neat way to redistribute wealth away from the lower half and towards the upper half via interest payments on the debt, most of which will be paid to those who own the greatest number of assets generally; guess who that is. No, it ain’t you. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/24 "2003-07-24T03:41:10Z")
Sam Stone, the arguement that Bush never knew wether or not Saddam really had WMDs isn’t that good of an arguement for Bush I think. Do you think that Bush could have gotten support for the Iraqi war if he said “Clinton might or might not have destroyed all of Saddam’s WMDs in 1998”? I like your strawman though. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/25 "2003-07-24T04:04:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\* > In the same interview, Bill Clinton also said that they knew there were plenty of WMD unaccounted for when the inspectors left in 1998 - Clinton’s bombing was an attempt to get them, and they didn’t know how successful it was. > \*\* Clinton’s bombing wasn’t targetting the actual weapons so much as the means to roduce them. Opposed to Bush, Clinton believed that al Qaeda was going to give chemical weapons, precursor to VX, (empta), to Hussein. Bush belived that Hussein was going to give chemical weapons to al Qaeda. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\* > Bill Clinton also supported the war on Iraq, and he had access to the same intelligence Bush has. > \*\* Actually, Clinton didn’t have access to the shady [Office of Special Plans](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199309) that was created apparently specifically to justify the war in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/26 "2003-07-24T05:39:29Z")
And yet, he STILL supported it! The intel must be really strong. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/27 "2003-07-24T07:13:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Learn to read. That wasn’t clever the _first_ time you said it, either.:rolleyes: You want to get hostile with me? Then it’s on, baby! > [@](#): > > The question is very simple: you are president; you put something in your SOTU that shoudn’t have been in there; how do you “take responsibility” for that exercise of poor judgment? Well, I can tell you what NOT to do. You don’t come up with some cock and bull story about how the CIA fed you bogus info, never telling you it was unreliable, and that you were somehow an unwitting dupe, and then have the whole thing blow up in your face. > [@](#): > > I fail utterly to see how you draw that conclusion. Yes, I’m sure you do fail utterly. > [@](#): > > What my question boils down to is this: what _specifically_ do you think would be a satisfactory response on the part of the Bush administration to this dilemma? What precise actions would be necessary for you to say that the administration has taken “full responsibility” for its actions? Look - Fuck your “hypothetical”. I already told you - did you fall asleep while you were reading? He shouldn’t have tried to pin the blame on others. A simple answer for your “simple” question, simple-boy. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you have an answer, short of hari-kari. I don’t think there is anything the administration could do that you would find satisfactory. I think that you would accuse the administration of failing to take “full responsibility” no matter what course of action they elected to take. You apparently think a lot of things. It impresses me not at all. > [@](#): > > Which, if true, only proves that you are less interested in the administration actually doing some particular thing and more interested in just bitching about the Bush White House. You have proved nothing. Actually, I would LOVE if the Bush Admin. would do the right thing; they just have a lousy track record so far in that regard. You really crack me up, Dewey. You ask “what would _you_ do?”, but try to impose your ridiculous rule that one cannot say he wouldn’t have done what Bush did. That’s the whole freaking point. Then you have a little temper tantrum when I point it out. Get over yourself. Bush had AMPLE opportunity to come clean, and he didn’t. I think it’s too late to extricate himself from the mess he got himself into. At this point, he would have to admit that they pumped up the intelligence in his SOU address and deliberately included some dubious info to make the case sound stronger than it actually was, that they browbeat the CIA into signing off on it, and that they pressured Tenet to take the fall for Bush when the shit hit the fan. Of course, if he admits all that, he may as well tender his resignation. What he will do is probably just wait and see if it blows over. Sadly, given the short attention-span of the American public, it very well _may_ blow over. Time will tell. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/28 "2003-07-24T07:26:41Z")
As far as I know, **Sam,** Bill Clinton supported “regime change” :rolleyes: in Iraq. He did _not_ support a full-blown invasion with 250,000 troops. There _is_ a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/29 "2003-07-24T07:30:52Z")
Yes, he did. Before the war he said, “I support this administration’s policy towards Iraq completely.” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/30 "2003-07-24T08:28:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*You really crack me up, Dewey. You ask “what would _you_ do?”, but try to impose your ridiculous rule that one cannot say he wouldn’t have done what Bush did. That’s the whole freaking point. Then you have a little temper tantrum when I point it out. Get over yourself. \*\* Listen, goddammit: I did not ask “what would you have done from day one?,” I asked “_after the screwup, what would you craft as an appropriate response_”? Responding “I wouldn’t have screwed up in the first place” totally ignores the purpose of the question. That is not a “ridiculous rule.” It is a sensible preemptive response to prevent people from dodging the question. \*\* > [@](#): > > I think it’s too late to extricate himself from the mess he got himself into. \*\* Which sort of proves my point. Why pretend that any action the Bush administration could take would alter your opinion even one iota? \*\* > [@](#): > > At this point, he would have to admit that they pumped up the intelligence in his SOU address and deliberately included some dubious info to make the case sound stronger than it actually was, that they browbeat the CIA into signing off on it, and that they pressured Tenet to take the fall for Bush when the shit hit the fan. \*\* Why not throw in sackcloth and ashes, and a good scourging in Canterbury Cathedral? You assume an awful lot, starting with the assumption that the inclusion of the uranium materials was an intentional deception, rather than a simple judgment among competing views of the validity of the underlying intelligence that later turned out to be incorrect. One can plausibly suggest at this stage that the president should make some kind of statement indicating he exercised poor judgment. It is quite another thing entirely to say at this point that the line in question was inserted with malicious intent. FTR, **hansel** ’s response is one that I consider reasonable. I might quibble a bit on specific language, but her suggestion overall is not outrageous. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/31 "2003-07-24T10:55:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*Yes, he did. Before the war he said, “I support this administration’s policy towards Iraq completely.” \*\* Doesn’t that let you know that there is something wrong with it? 😉 Anyway, you could provide the context of the quote, just for funsies. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/32 "2003-07-24T11:26:32Z")
Just a bit of Googling found this: > [@](#): > > [The only material difference between the Iraq policies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush](http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/10-21-2002/vo18no21_war.htm) > > During a February 6, 1998 joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Clinton pointedly observed that the anticipated military strike on Iraq was intended to force the regime to “fulfill all of the United Nations Security Council resolutions.” Asked if the campaign would also seek Saddam’s removal from power, Clinton replied: “That is not what the United Nations has authorized us to do.” > > The only material difference between the Iraq policies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush is this: Clinton adhered precisely to UN Security Council guidelines; Mr. Bush favors enforcement of UN Security Council dictates with the added objective of regime change. In fact, the president’s enthusiasm to carry out the UN’s decrees apparently exceeds that of the UN itself. But once again, Mr. Bush seems to be working from an updated version of an old script. > [@](#): > > [Clinton: ‘Follow Blix lead’ on Iraq, gain support of Europe](http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/14/sprj.irq.clinton/) > ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) – Former President Bill Clinton on Thursday said the Bush administration should not take action against Iraq without guidance from chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and the support of Europe. > > “We should let Blix lead us to come together,” Clinton said, addressing members of a synagogue. “Everyone knows [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] needs to disarm or get out of town … [but] he won’t do it unless the world is united.” > > Calling Blix a “tough, honest guy who is trying to find the truth,” Clinton said the Bush administration should support the head weapons inspector. > > Clinton said any “pre-emptive strike” against Iraq by the United States should come only with the support of Europe, including NATO members France, Belgium and Germany. > > Separately, Clinton repeated his position that North Korea is the “biggest short-term threat” because of Pyongyang’s highly developed nuclear weapons program. It sounds like Clinton agreed more closely with _George **Herbert** Walker Bush_’s position on Iraq than with George Walker Bush’s. I couldn’t find the words you put in quotes anywhere **Sam**. Where did you get them? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/33 "2003-07-24T13:18:52Z")
Clinton is wisely trying to nudge his party away from the cliff that is the ‘radical Left’. With all of the DNC presidential hopefulls now in full-blown ‘OMFG No war for oil!’ mode, the dems are abandoning the center position that Clinton so cleverly established. Clinton knows that to win an election, the DNC is going to have to appeal to more than the lunatic fringe; To his dismay, all 9 candidates have taken Dean’s lead, and are doing their damnedest to appeal to only the far-Left. Clinton may be the sleaziest bag of shit to ever live in the White House, but he knows his politics. ---
**Author:** ![hilltopper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c68b51/32.png) [@hilltopper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hilltopper)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/34 "2003-07-24T15:35:55Z")
BY Dewey: “FTR, hansel’s response is one that I consider reasonable. I might quibble a bit on specific language, but her suggestion overall is not outrageous.” I’ve been off the board for a while… Looks like hansel responded for me (and very well). I acknowledge, like Clinton, that all presidents will mess-up from time ot time. The thing that will garner my respect is to own up to those mistakes. If Bush could just come out with a statement that even closely resembles the one proposed by hansel, that would satisfy me - no hari-kari required. Bush’s lack of such a statement is a stark reminder that BUSH DOESN’T WRITE (or probably understand - don’t ask for a cite) his own speeches. He has very talented speech writers that have put together some nice words for him to parrot. By not taking responsibility for the content of his speeches he is perpetuating the PUPPET stigma that seems to really be bearing itself out. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/35 "2003-07-24T16:23:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hilltopper \* > \*\*BUSH DOESN’T WRITE (or probably understand - don’t ask for a cite) his own speeches. \*\* Has any President since Harry S. Truman written his own speeches? As much as I dislike him, his public speaking, if not his pronunciation has improved immensely. Wish I could say the same for my spelling. ---
**Author:** ![hilltopper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c68b51/32.png) [@hilltopper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hilltopper)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/36 "2003-07-24T16:42:19Z")
By carnivorousplant: "Has any President since Harry S. Truman written his own speeches? As much as I dislike him, his public speaking, if not his pronunciation has improved immensely. Wish I could say the same for my spelling. " Clinton and Gore both contributed to and had final say in what went into their speeches. Unfortuantley for Bush, he gives the impression he doesn’t have the background, incite, or understanding to contribute to or challenge the content of his speeches. BTW - my spelling sucks too - isn’t that a sign of jeeniouss? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/37 "2003-07-24T16:59:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Why pretend that any action the Bush administration could take would alter your opinion even one iota? Who’s pretending? You’re absolutely right, there is very little for Bush to say at this point that would convince me a willful deception did not take place. The evidence is just too strong. But you seem to be making a strong implication that such is an unwielding and unreasonable attitude. It is not. Again, I’m sorry, but I have to break your unilaterally-imposed rule of not delving into the past, and say that Bush already had the opportunity to come clean, yet failed to do so. The administration quite obviously lied to cover up what they did. You can foam at the mouth all you want about it, but that’s the only logical assessment of the situation a reasonable person can draw. As an analogy, what do _you_ contend that Nixon could have said AFTER the Watergate scandal broke out that might have changed anyone’s opinion? > [@](#): > > You assume an awful lot, starting with the assumption that the inclusion of the uranium materials was an intentional deception, rather than a simple judgment among competing views of the validity of the underlying intelligence that later turned out to be incorrect. I do not _assume_ it; I _conclude_ it. Were your “competing views” scenario correct, the info would not have been scrubbed from an _earlier_ speech, then put back in to the SOU address. And the administration certainly wouldn’t have found it necessary to concoct the story that the CIA never objected to its inclusion, which turned out to be patently false. > [@](#): > > One can plausibly suggest at this stage that the president should make some kind of statement indicating he exercised poor judgment. It is quite another thing entirely to say at this point that the line in question was inserted with malicious intent. I think your use of the phrase “malicious intent” is just loaded language to make my position sound stronger than it is. Let’s just say it appears that the Administration dressed-up the evidence for war. > [@](#): > > FTR, **hansel** ’s response is one that I consider reasonable. I might quibble a bit on specific language, but her suggestion overall is not outrageous. Well, I agree with you on that, at least. If Bush were to say something like that, it would certainly be a step in the right direction. I’m not holding my breath, though. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/38 "2003-07-24T17:17:12Z")
How easy it is to quibble over evidence when apparently it’s not good enough that Saddam Hussein was a mass mudrerer responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait. ---
**Author:** ![hilltopper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c68b51/32.png) [@hilltopper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hilltopper)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/39 "2003-07-24T17:43:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*How easy it is to quibble over evidence when apparently it’s not good enough that Saddam Hussein was a mass mudrerer responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait. \*\* Yes Walloon, but those are “regeonal issues.” You know like the ones in North Korea. They alone should not be enough to drag the US into a war. You have to through something else into the mix. Something the American and international community can sink their teeth into…that strikes fear, like links to terrorism and nuclear threats. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/40 "2003-07-24T18:30:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*How easy it is to quibble over evidence when apparently it’s not good enough that Saddam Hussein was a mass mudrerer responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait. \*\* I can’t believe this chestnut is still getting tossed around. International law expressly forbids invasion of a sovereign country for the purpose of regime change. Yes, even if the regime is evil. The Bush administration knows that, which is why they had to play up the angle that Iraq was a threat to the United States. It’s illegal to engage in war with another country unless it’s in self-defense. Getting rid of an evil regime is not a legal justification for war in and of itself. [U.N. Charter 2(4):](http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/) > [@](#): > > All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Here’s an essay about it: [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew98.php](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew98.php) In this case, I think we _are_ talking about a truly evil regime. But you have to ask yourself 2 things: 1. Should the United States be the sole authority to decide that dropping bombs on Iraq is necessarily going to make the Iraqi people better off? 2. Do we really want to live in a world where any country can invade any other country simply because they unilaterally “decided” that the other country was “evil”? After all, there are a number of countries in the world whose governments consider the United States to be an “evil regime”. By your reasoning, they would be justified in attacking the U.S. on their say-so alone. Such a world is too frightening to consider; it’s much better to have international standards of behavior and to adhere to them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442.md?page=3)