# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/41 "2003-07-24T18:53:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by smiling bandit \* > \*\*Remember, he himself was in a similar situation some time back. He blew the holy stuffing out of a medicine factory in Sudan. . \*\* Was it ever actually _proven_ that the Sudanese medicine factory _was in fact making medicine_, rather than something else? ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/42 "2003-07-24T19:17:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor \* > \*\*Was it ever actually _proven_ that the Sudanese medicine factory _was in fact making medicine_, rather than something else? \*\* Yes. The ownership had changed hands from ObL to its unfortunate new owner a year beforehand, IIRC. The tests that showed empta weren’t the mass spectromery tests that would’ve been conclusive. They used less reliable field tests that will register herbicides and pesticides as positives for empta. It was a screw up. We bombed a factory that was responsible for producing something like half of th emedicine that was produced in Sudan. We didn’t even apologize. Clinton’s assertion was that ObL was making empta, the precursor for VX, to give to Hussein. The opposite chain of posession from Bush. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/43 "2003-07-24T19:20:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor \* > \*\*Was it ever actually _proven_ that the Sudanese medicine factory _was in fact making medicine_, rather than something else? \*\* IIRC the US government did not dispute the formal claim. They paid substantial money for the damage caused. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/44 "2003-07-24T20:39:32Z")
As much as I’d like to believe that Clinton is being on the up-and-up in this instant, I think his track record makes it equally likely that another angle is being played out: With the release of the 9/11 report this week, it’s very likely that Clinton’s administration will be vulnerable to criticism that intelligence data was not used correctly to deter domestic terrorism. ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/45 "2003-07-24T20:49:24Z")
I wonder if **Sam** remembers where he got his quote from Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Calliope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Calliope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calliope)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/46 "2003-07-24T21:32:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hilltopper \* > \*\*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. \*\* As much as I’d like to agree with you, Bush is not the idiot he portrays. In any case, according to the [Official White House site](http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/preparation/index.html) Bush did indeed contribute, edit, and have ample opportunity to make changes in his SOTU address. That is if you put any stock in the WH slide show. In particular, I’d like to point out [Bush sketching in the margins and _rewriting_ parts of his address](http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/preparation/02.html) , Bush [giving his speechwriting team a few pointers](http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/preparation/03.html) , and Bush practicing his speech [after _days of revisions and rehearsals_.](http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/preparation/07.html) So which part does he get to escape responsibility for in the SOTU speech? He seems to have been actively participating in the writing and understanding of the speech. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/47 "2003-07-24T21:51:59Z")
He’s just not a “fact-checker” kind of guy. ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/48 "2003-07-24T21:53:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*As much as I’d like to believe that Clinton is being on the up-and-up in this instant, I think his track record makes it equally likely that another angle is being played out: With the release of the 9/11 report this week, it’s very likely that Clinton’s administration will be vulnerable to criticism that intelligence data was not used correctly to deter domestic terrorism. \*\* Another, more Machiavellan possibility I read elsewhere: Hillary isn’t planning on running in 2004. A Democrat beating Bush would forestall her running until 2012. Thus, her hubby has an interest in keeping Bush in the White House for a second term, to keep 2008 open as an option. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/49 "2003-07-24T22:08:59Z")
Not that Machiavellian. It’s no secret that Hillary would not at all mind if Bush wins in '04. But you bring up another good point. Anyway, if Clinton were known as a non-partisan type of guy it wouldn’t be that obvious to question his motives. Not that any GOP guy would act differently… ---
**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 25, 2003, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/50 "2003-07-25T01:33:44Z")
**SimonX:** Would you relax? I just got in from work tonight, and haven’t looked at this thread since your made you THREE demands for a cite. If I can’t find the exact cite, I’ll withdraw the comment. The quote I posted came from my memory, when I looked up Clinton’s support for the war before it began. In looking just now, I did come across this interesting comment from Clinton: > [@](#): > > “Saddam Hussein is not a good man by our definition,” said the former president. **"There’s no question … he has significant stocks of chemical and biological agents."** From [CBS News](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/06/politics/main521036.shtml). Gee, and here I thought Bush made it all up. It seems like Clinton, who had access to the same intel, believed it just as strongly. In that article, Clinton raises the objection that Osama Bin Laden should be eliminated before taking on Iraq. Not that Iraq shouldn’t be invaded - he just disagreed on timing. And here’s probably the source of my memory that Clinton agreed with Bush. From [CNN](http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/): > [@](#): > > “I still hope the United Nations can act together on this, and I still think there’s a chance we can, and there’s still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm,” Clinton said. > > He said Bush is “doing the right thing now” by gathering international support, but said he doesn’t believe another U.N. resolution is needed to go to war with Iraq. If that’s the quote, then it’s not entirely fair to say that Clinton completely agreed with Bush. What he agreed with Bush on was that another resolution was not required to go to war, but Clinton still maintained his preference for U.N. support. So did Bush, at the time, so at that point the two men could be said to be in agreement. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that Clinton agreed with everything thereafter. Still, it’s a pretty hawkish picture, and this comes from a man who was no relying on ‘Bush’s lies’, and was in a good position to know if Bush was lying or if he was accurately stating the intelligence. Bill Clinton is a real problem for the ‘Bush lied about WMD!’ crowd. If Bush lied, why didn’t Clinton call him on it? Most of the evidence Bush cited was available to Clinton as well. Clinton was as hawkish on Iraq as Bush - it’s just that Clinton wanted more international support. But at NO TIME did Clinton claim that Bush was over-stating the case for WMD. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/51 "2003-07-25T02:52:34Z")
Well, now, **Sam** , as you know, I’m coming from the conservative wing of the extreme left, so maybe I dont represent that large a chunk of the aforementioned crowd. I dont know why Wild Bill said that stuff. His being a political animal down to his toenails, I suspect theres a purpose. But more to the point, so what? I think he’s full of it on this issue, but thats certainly not the first time I’ve thought so. I think you very much overestimate the reverance for BC. Now if Jimmy Carter had done so, I’d start checking for pods. But Bill Clinton? _Feh_ ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/52 "2003-07-25T07:11:40Z")
**Sam Stone** keeps omitting the second half of the “justified war” formula – that Saddam had WMDs, and that he was an _imminent threat_ to the United States. The first half was believed by a lot of folks prior to the war – heck, even I figured he had something in a mayo jar somewhere – but nobody knew for sure how much he had. The second one appears to have been crafted out of whole cloth by the White House. Clinton’s opinions might lend some weight to the first half, but even he’s not crazy enough to boost the second part. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/53 "2003-07-25T07:56:02Z")
I believe that Hussein had some banned weapons. I’ve just not been convinced that this invasion of Iraq was/is good for the US. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/54 "2003-07-25T11:33:11Z")
Here’s an [ABCnews.com](http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/wnt990210_sudan.html) cite about the testing @ the Sudanese pharnaceutical plant. > [@](#): > > ABCNEWS talked to many international arms control experts, scientists and some U.S. intelligence officials who say they now believe that the CIA soil sample, and the tests done on it, prove nothing. > Among the points they make: > The CIA test found such a small amount of the chemical EMPTA that the results could have been wrong. > **The lab that did the test did not use the most sensitive and reliable technique — mass spectrometry — to analyze the sample.** > The CIA used only one laboratory to carry out the tests. International standards normally require testing in three independent labs. > ABCNEWS consulted some of the world’s leading experts in detecting chemical-warfare agents. They believe the CIA’s test results are questionable, at best. > “The evidence is based on trace amounts of a compound in soil, and we know that compound is not stable in soil,” says chemical toxicologist Dr. Hendrik Benschop. “So, this would not add up to solid scientific evidence.” then, from [here](http://www.mitretek.org/home.nsf/EnvironmentEnergy/FAQ12): > [@](#): > > **Q**. EMPTA’s structure resembled that of an agricultural insecticide, known as FONOFOS, which is commercially available in Africa. While the two are not identical, they have molecular similarities and could be confused in a laboratory test performed under less-than-ideal conditions, according to a counterterrorism expert who ran the Army’s chemical and biological warfare programs at Fort Campbell, Ky., in the 1980s. Could the “EMPTA” actually have been an innocuous pesticide? > > **A**. Fonofos is actually O-ethyl-S-phenyl ethylphosphonothiolate (CAS reg. no. 944-22-9; it’s specifically exempted from the CWC Schedule 2). Thus it differs from EMPTA as follows: (1) ethylphosphonyl rather than methylphosphonyl, (2) S-phenyl thiophosphonic ester rather than thiophosphonic acid. GC/MS should be able to tell the difference between the two under just about any circumstances I can imagine, because of difference no. 1. Ordinary gas chromatography in a decent laboratory should be able to distinguish EMPTA and fonofos, provided that the phenyl group is not hydrolyzed away before it gets to the lab (a reasonable proposition for a soil sample, even one not promptly stored at 4 degrees), even assuming that the EMPTA must be derivitized for the analysis. Using liquid chromatography techniques, where no derivitization is required, difference no. 2 makes the analysis even more definitive. > > I think one needs to be careful to distinguish the conditions under which the soil sample was obtained (one presumes these were less ideal than is customary in the environmental business) and the conditions under which they were analyzed. The Army’s chemical and biological defense programs required rapid response and no false negatives; if there is a toxic cloud coming over that hill they need to know it fast so they can don their masks and suits. They prefer to do this for a false alarm every so often rather than learn of a chemical attack because a few sentries start twitching on the ground. As a result the Army’s experience (and the counterterrorism expert’s, by inference) tends to focus on field methods that are very quick and give an occasional false positive. > > Although the papers do not say, there seems to be no reason to assume that analysis of the soil samples from the Sudan was conducted under conditions where “we need the answer in 5 minutes or else your comrades might die.” **Unless someone knows differently, it seems to me fair to presume that the analyses were performed using techniques and instrumentation capable of distinguishing a diester of ethylphosphonothioic acid from a monoester of methylphosphonothioic acid.** > > Finally, according to EPA: > > “Fonofos is immobile in sandy loam and silt loam soils. It is mobile in quartz sand. It decomposes in aerobic soils by microbes in 4-8 weeks. Fonofos is non-volatile from soil but volatile from water. It degrades in aerobic soils with a half like of 3-16 weeks. Fonofos is moderately persistent.” > > Fonofos is used mostly on corn, but it is used on ornamental turf. For fonofos to turn up at the plant in Khartoum, it would thus appear that either (a) the plant had a nice lawn that had been treated relatively recently, or (b) there had been some recent spraying activity nearby and there was either overspray or blowing dust. I do find it interesting that it is the NY Times that raised this possibility; I would imagine given the high visibility PR campaign that had fonofos (or for that matter, any organophosphate) been used anywhere near the plant the government of the Sudan would have been loudly proclaiming the fact. > > In sum, it could have been a fonofos false positive, but I remain skeptical of the possibility. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442/55 "2003-07-26T12:46:49Z")
I seethings differently…this shows just how cynical and worthless Bill Clinton (as ahuman being) is…he made this statement to make himself LOOK gracious. Don’t forget, Bill still is a big wheel in the Democratic Party…and his job now is to pave the way for a democratic candidate in 2004. What I look for now: if the economy worsens, Bill Clinton will go on the road and yack about how Bush ruined the great economy that Clinton left him. If the war in Iraq gets worse, Clinton will attack Bush as well. BUT, if things go well, Clinton will have an out…he’ll be claiming that “ah new all along that Saddam was makin’n nucular weapons…” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-gives-gw-bush-a-pass-on-the-iraq-uranium-flap/190442.md?page=2)