Bush re: O'Neill--Bill Clinton. 9/11.

[rjung]

@SimonX

Hey, I voted for GWB.

You’re also not the typical Bush voter – you’ve demonstrated intelligence, a willingess to accept the facts (even when they go against your established beliefs), and an integrity to go beyond “voting for whoever has the little ‘R’ by his name in the voting booth.”

If only more Republicans were like you, SimonX, I wouldn’t be half as pissed at the RNC as I am.

[milroyj]

@SimonX

IIRC, regime change in Iraq was a matter of US law since 1998(?). The method of regime change wasn’t specifically mentioned as a full scale invasion of course. It was more along the lines of supporting Iraqi insurgents against Hussein. IIRc, we’d’ve been happy with just different Baathis.

You recall correctly. The “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998” states:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@ElwoodCuse

Of course, the administration decides to take the easy way out in attempting to discredit the claim–they blame Bill Clinton and 9/11.
. . . .
I thought we had moved away from this. I thought the administration had moved on from the 9/11 reason to the WMD/Saddam is bad/liberate the Iraqis reason. I thought everything Bill Clinton did was bad and GWB is here to fix all of Clinton’s mistakes.

I’m confused as to how this is blaming President Clinton. In fact, you seem to admit that the Bush Admin is saying what Clinton did was good. Is it possible that you’re so used to Bush blaming Clinton that you just assumed that if they used his name, they must be blaming him for something?

And I don’t think they’re saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. They’re pointing out that Bush’s approach to foreign policy, in general, changed as a result of 9/11. He went from being (in my opinion) too isolationist, to favoring foreign intervention in at least two countries as a means of cutting off potential attacks against the US.

Also, the meetings that O’Neill was talking about were not about finding a way to invade Iraq. They were about continuation of Clinton’s policies on Iraq. From a transcript of O’Neill’s interview on the Today Show:

O’NEILL: Yeah, and the other thing that’s good, today the book is going to be available, and this red meat frenzy that’s occurred when people didn’t have anything except snippets – as an example, you know, people are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.

COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president’s agenda 10 days after the inauguration?

O’NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I’m amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn’t do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I’ve said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.

COURIC: Because of the Iraq Liberation Act that was passed in 1998 almost unanimously by the Senate and near unanimously by the House.

O’NEILL: Absolutely.

I haven’t read the book, so I can’t speak intelligently about what it says, but it appears that O’Neill doesn’t think Bush did anything wrong (with regard to Iraq only).

[New_Iskander]

@ElvisL1ves

A hell of a lot were saying “Hold on until we go find out”, though.

[metallic voice]Irrelevant, no code recognition, irrelevant[/metallic voice]