This must be the only thing that Clinton ever said with which you are in agreement.
Clinton is not longer a force in national politics and policy making. Give it up already.
Boilerplate rhetoric. Any time anyone takes action, it is for “people everywhere.” (And, of course, at the time, most political commetators on the Right were crying “Wag the Dog” politics, so it is not as if Clinton was believed by the people who now ask us to believe Bush.
Bush claimed that Hussein was a threat to the U.S., a specific claim for which he has provided no evidence (although his actions indicate that he did not, himself, believe it).
Actually, no. Please don’t try to pigeonhole me. I thought Clinton did a great job on trade. I thought he did a great job with welfare reform. I thought he did a good job maintaining the budget. I thought he did a good job in attacking Iraq in defiance of the U.N., because he thought Iraq was a threat.
I’m no knee-jerk Clinton basher. But thanks for bringing that irrelevant character shot into the discussion.
When discussing whether a president is distorting the conclusions of the intelligence services, it’s a worthwhile exercise to go back and see what a previous president did with the same information.
And if you think this was just boilerplate, Tomndebb, I would like to also point out that Clinton AND Gore were fully supportive of the decision to go to war against Iraq.
For example, here’s what Clinton said before the war:
Hell, don’t take my word for it. Go do some Google searching for “Clinton Iraq Weapons”, or “France Iraq Weapons”, or some other search strings. Have a look at what pretty much the entire world has been saying about Iraq since 1998, and before the Bush administration decided to go to war.
The idea that no one thought Iraq had WMD until Bush spun the intelligence is ridiculous. So is the idea that the Clinton administration never thought Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Go look at the damned source material - there’s plenty of it out there.
That leaves a big mystery: If the general consensus was that Iraq had WMD, where are they?
For that, I do not have an answer. Based on the evidence to date, I think the most logical conclusion at this time is that he DID have them at some point prior to the war. All the evidence points to it. Saddam’s own behaviour suggests it.
But your position that the lack of evidence of those weapons today is proof that they didn’t exist relies on one supposition: That a man with the resources of a nation, given 16 months of warning, couldn’t hide a few thousand gallons of material well enough somewhere in his country that they couldn’t be found in 10 weeks of searching. I don’t think it’s impossible that those weapons are hidden somewhere, and therefore I do not consider it a closed case. In short, I reserve judgement.
I believe that my position is informed and rational. I find it humorous that I get continually attacked for it, while other people can run around spinning wild conspiracy theories and get a pat on a back and a ‘you go, girl!’ response from the supposedly factually-oriented denizens of Great Debates.
This place is turning into ‘Democratic Underground Lite’.
And why?
Has the vast liberal conspiracy sent out flyers and e-mails? “Lets gang up over at the SDMB!”
Or might it not be that reasonable, skeptical, and intellligent people have largely come to a conclusion you find disagreeable?
That is policy and tradition. I can think of no occasion in the last 150 years where a retired president actively opposed military action by a sitting president. It is just not done. (The closest that one comes might be Carter’s comments regarding various adventures by Reagan and Bush, but even there, I do not recall Carter actively opposing Grenada or Panama before they were launched.)
No, there is not. Even the article you cited does not make a claim that Clinton thought that Iraq threatened the U.S. He specifically said that Hussein was dangerous and he supported getting the UN to authorize force, if necessary. That is not a threat to the U.S. and it does not justify a pre-emptive strike by the U.S. and a handful of bribed and bullied “coalition” allies. Clinton always proclaimed dangers to “the region” or to “world peace” until he found himself questioned bout Bush’s desire to attack Iraq, at which point he made the appropriate noises for a former executive.
The unemployment levels reached record highs under Bush I; under Clinton they reached record lows. Yes, ten years ago (today) Clinton was president; he had been so for about seven months. (In America we elect the prez in 1992, 96, 2000, etc. but they don’t actually take office until the following January.)
So yes, the unemployment was higher then…but not for long. Who was responsible for the decline? I suppose that depends on whom you ask. But to say that unemployment was higher under Clinton is spurious and silly.
By the way, I think we’re splitting hairs. If you care to refute my other assertions, go ahead. Otherwise, back to your regularly scheduled debate…
Had I been posting to SDMB when Clinton’s attacks against Iraq took place I would have been in opposition.
I think that a preemptive war is an exceedingly chancy business and should be used only the most extreme circumstances. I didn’t think at the time that Clinton had good enough information for his actions and I’m becoming more certain all the time that Bush didn’t.
Bush-Wolfowitz-Perle supporters continually harp that weapons will be found. And I really think that if none are ever found it will merely prove how diabolically clever Sadaam is.
In case weapons weren’t enough, an Al Qaeda link was proposed. I would say fabricated but that’s hard to prove. Even given a link to terrorism I don’t think a preemptive war is an answer. I’m convinced that there is no military solution to the problem of terrorism.
It seems to me that the source of the hatred has to be removed. Unfortunately, that is a long term effort and GW doesn’t appear to me to be a deep and long term thinker. A major source of the hatred seems to be our support for Israel against the Palastinians. GW does seem to be making an effort to remove that particular saddle-burr and, I think, needs to put at least as much effort into that as he does into fund raising for the next election.
There is an expression about “knee-jerk liberals.” Well, conservative knees seem to jerk at about 8 on the Richter Scale whenever GW is even questioned. After all it is unAmerican to not support our leader in all things post 9/11.
Do you have a cite for this? My understanding is that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, which I don’t believe we’ve had.
And that’s a perfectly defensible position, over which intelligent people can disagree.
I am NOT arguing in this particular thread the merits of the war. I am specifically calling into question breathless claims that Bush lied, that he duped the American people, twisted intelligence, conspired with Dick Cheney to make their oil buddies rich, etc. Rather, I think the intelligence estimates did point to a threat, and the Bush administration examined the evidence and decided that Saddam had to go. Having made that decision, they tried to make their case to the world. In so doing, they may have over-stated some pieces of information. But the aggregate case they made was reasonably accurate.
You can disagree about the merits of the war without invoking hairbrained conspiracy theories as so many on this board are doing.
Do you have a cite for this? My understanding is that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, which I don’t believe we’ve had.
The premise of this thread is laughable: “Look, Blair gave a nice speech, everything that was done in Iraq is justified!” Blair’s an old hand at giving good speeches. He gave another one, just before the war, which brought a lot of people who were questioning him onto his side, for the time being. Now, many of the things said in that speech are even more questionable than they were then. However, his speech in March was a good one when he gave it, and his more recent speech was also a good one. I’ll say it again, Blair (unlike his American counterpart) has always been good with words.
However, the time when speeches (good or bad) are sufficient in the matter of Iraq is long since past. I have heard many good speeches, on both sides of the issue. In the end, it is the deeds which are accomplished, or not accomplished, which will prove the issue one way or the other. If history is going to “forgive” the misdeeds and mistakes leading up to war, then history must know the reasons why what we were told was not true, and we must do more than pay lip service to rebuilding the nation we have dismantled.
Deeds, not words. It’s time for Bush and Blair to put up, or shut the fuck up.
They can’t do the first, as there is no “there” there.
They can’t do the second as they are politicians in a hole. You try to get out by continuing to dig.
There is a thin red line between lying and having “over-stated some piece of information.”
I do think that GW is about to give another demonstration of Fettridge’s Law.
“Almost anything is easier to into than out of.”
I understood Blair’s point to be even stronger. I understood him to say that we should be proud of the war – that it would have been unforgivable not to have gone to war. His line was:
Note that he erroniously said “if we…do not act” when he should have used the subjunctive, “if we…had not acted.” Maybe Bush’s grammar rubbed off on Blair. 
As much as I hate to miss a chance to pick on GW’s language skills, perhaps Blair meant the statement in general and has other exciting events in mind which are still to come.
(I’m not worried, though, I’m sure I’ll have plenty of future opportunities to pick on Bush’s language skills. It’s one of the few things that excites me about the upcoming campaign season.)
Come to think of it, this is the way Damon Runyan’s comic gangsters talk. The gamblers in Guys and Dolls speak with this usage.
So in other words, there was no recession. Thanks for playing, though.
From the citation you twice demanded and were then not capable of reading:
milroyj, your penchant for simply failing to read for comprehension is amusing, but in this case, it serves no purpose but to make you look silly.
I noted that Bush’s re-election run was safe barring two conditions, one of which was a renewed downturn in the economy.
I was challenged that the economy was already in trouble.
I noted that while the economy has suffered, it is currently on a slow rise.
You chimed in to nitpick my terminology.
I provided the citation you twice demanded.
You are now pretending that there was no such event, although it was not as though no one else noted it, including the St. Louis Federal Reserve, [the Chicago Federal Reserve](www.chicagofed.org/publications/economicperspectives/ 2002/3qepart2.pdf), the UAW, and a few other groups.
Having once more allowed you to demonstrate your capacity for interrupting other discussions merely to display ignorance while ignoring evidence, this hijack is now at an end.