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.
IIRC the US government did not dispute the formal claim. They paid substantial money for the damage caused.
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.
I wonder if Sam remembers where he got his quote from Clinton.
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 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 , Bush giving his speechwriting team a few pointers , and Bush practicing his speech after days of revisions and rehearsals.
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.
He’s just not a “fact-checker” kind of guy.
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.
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…
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:
From CBS News.
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
Here’s an ABCnews.com cite about the testing @ the Sudanese pharnaceutical plant.
then, from here:
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…”