Video compilation of Clinton addressing Iraq's threat

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.republicanfilms.com/

So when you hear Clinton sounding like George W. Bush, it's hard to take seriously the conspiracy theorists who talk of oil, Halliburton or "the president's daddy". Not that it was easy to take them seriously before.

[zenith-nadir]

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998 (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/) "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.I'm not a Bush fan but even the Democrats thought Saddam had WMD back in 1998 and launched an attack. I leave it up to the reader to decide... ;)

[Dorian Gray]

Apparently you have decided without reading, because Clinton's quote says "Programs", while your spin says "Weapons".

The film says Programs, Capability, used weapons against Iran (in the 80s), could rebuild in the future, prevent from reconstituting its weapons, window of opportunity to rebuild in months, begin to rebuild, could develop, weapons could threaten in the future, give up his weapons of mass destruction programs, free rein to rebuild, sought to acquire weapons, elimination of Iraq's capability, will develop weapons, etc. All spoken in FUTURE terms, all indicating that he had nothing AT THAT TIME, and all consistent with the most recent report.

The film makes a little mistake towards the end - it shows that terrorism was a huge focus of Clinton's administration, and begs the question of why Bush didn't continue with this focus. Also, before someone spins this too, Clinton's quote says Iraq might threaten its NEIGHBORS, not that Iraq threatens THE WORLD or THE US.

Ultimately, the Republicans at the time said these airstrikes were just a diversion from the BJ scandal, i.e., the airstrikes were a smokescreen that accomplished nothing. Why isn't THAT in the film?

There has never been an attack on US or US-led forces where WMDs have been used. If Saddam was a madman, why has he never used them against us?

Finally, I want to see the 14-minute reel on Pres. GHW Bush and Sec of Defense Dick Cheney and Gen. Colin Powell, where they justify NOT invading Iraq over and over and over.

[BPSCG]

I posted this in another thread and a_u_p denounced it and demanded I apologize. Seems he had his britches in a twist because I wasn't able to provide a link, and he found it in www.snopes.com. The snopes link explains that while these quotations are accurate, they are necessarily taken out of context, and don't reflect the fact that the Dems disagreed about what to do about the WMDs. But the snopes article did not say that any of them disagreed with the assertion that Saddam had WMDs. I asked a_u_p to tell me if he thought the quotes, taken out of context misrepresented the actual positions of the ladies and gentlemen involved. As is his wont, he never replied. He apparently finds it easier to make irrelevant accusations and demand apologies than it is to defend an untenable position.

But a_u_p demanded I apologize. Twice. Okay, a_u_p, here ya go.

I'm sorry. I was wrong. The quotes below clearly show that the leading lights of the Democratic Party never once believed for a moment that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Only an idiot could read this and believe otherwise:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

[Dorian Gray]

I cherrypick your cherrypicking:

Capacity to develop (doesn't currently have them)

weapons program (doesn't have them yet)

long way from USA (i.e., not a threat to the US)

end WMD programs (doesn't have them yet)

development of WMD technology (doesn't have them yet)

spend money on weapons and palaces (doesn't necessarily have them - we found palaces all over Iraq, by the way - but no WMDs)

then:

weapons programs

is building WMDs

search for WMDs

build up his capabilities, seeking nuclear weapons

working to develop

increase his capacity, work to develop

developing capacity

grasp for weapons

All these phrases lack a strong claim that Saddam absolutely has bio/chem/nuke weapons right now.

Oh yes, and note how all but one of the quotes from the era of the Bush admin is from September 2002 - well after Bush and his cronies had set the stage with their cherrypicked intelligence. You like to think you can trust your president.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
I cherrypick your cherrypicking: I'll ask you the same thing I asked a_u_p, then: Could you please tell me if you think the quotes I supplied above misrepresent the actual positions of the ladies and gentlemen involved? You may confine your reply to quotes dated before September 11, 2001, if you like. It's really a very simple question, so I would be delighted to receive a simple answer to it at some point, having asked it three times now.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
http://www.republicanfilms.com/

So when you hear Clinton sounding like George W. Bush, it's hard to take seriously the conspiracy theorists who talk of oil, Halliburton or "the president's daddy". Not that it was easy to take them seriously before.

Is this an excuse for Bush to invade Iraq? Obviously the threat wasn't there for Cinton to sit by and do nothing.

I am assume so from a site named republicanfilms.com.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Apparently you have decided without reading, because Clinton's quote says "Programs", while your spin says "Weapons". With all due respect I suggest you are the one "spinning" ....that WMD programs somehow does not involve WMD weapons. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I'll ask you the same thing I asked a_u_p, then: Could you please tell me if you think the quotes I supplied above misrepresent the actual positions of the ladies and gentlemen involved? You may confine your reply to quotes dated before September 11, 2001, if you like. It's really a very simple question, so I would be delighted to receive a simple answer to it at some point, having asked it three times now.

You may note that concern about WMD was entirely justified. Hence the whole inspection program, which cost a lof of money and effort.

But when you are talking about politicians and empty rhetoric, their lines are just a dime a dozen. When the Bush administration came to power they said this.



The U.S. should assert its military dominance over the world to shape “the international security order in line with American principles and interests,� push for “regime change� in Iraq and China, among other countries, and “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars….While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.�
- “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,� The Project for the New American Century [members include Cheney and Rumsfeld], Sept. 2000



WTF have we heard about China lately. If 9/11 hadn't happened, China was going to be the whipping boy.

You may also note that the Clinton administration didn't invade.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I'll ask you the same thing I asked a_u_p, then: Could you please tell me if you think the quotes I supplied above misrepresent the actual positions of the ladies and gentlemen involved? You may confine your reply to quotes dated before September 11, 2001, if you like. It's really a very simple question, so I would be delighted to receive a simple answer to it at some point, having asked it three times now.

If you do not mind, I will give an answer.

Face it, just about everyone (including me) agreed with Bush that Saddam was power hungry, paranoid, dangerous, dictator.

OK so far?

The differences started when Bush decided to invade, occupy, and remake Iraq without laying the appropriate groundwork.

How is that?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You may note that concern about WMD was entirely justified. Thank you (jeezum crow, it's like pulling teeth out of an alligator...).

Now, can I assume that your answer means we won't be hearing any more silly claims that "Bush lied about WMDs"?

But when you are talking about politicians and empty rhetoric, their lines are just a dime a dozen. When the Bush administration came to power they said this. The U.S. should assert its military dominance over the world to shape “the international security order in line with American principles and interests,� push for “regime change� in Iraq and China, among other countries, and “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars….While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.�I took the liberty of bolding what you stuck outside the quotes. Since you provided no link (and you've educated me on what a reprehensible practice this is), can I assume that Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al never actually said them and that the claim that the U.S. wanted to "assert its military dominance ove the world" was yours, not theirs?

As for the rest, well, nobody seemed to object when the U.S. was able to fight multiple, simultaneous major theater wars in 1941. So why the objection today?
WTF have we heard about China lately. If 9/11 hadn't happened, China was going to be the whipping boy.An allegation which I'm sure you have great festering pustules of evidence to support, I'm sure.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Crossbow
If you do not mind, I will give an answer.

Face it, just about everyone (including me) agreed with Bush that Saddam was power hungry, paranoid, dangerous, dictator.

OK so far?

The differences started when Bush decided to invade, occupy, and remake Iraq without laying the appropriate groundwork.

How is that? That's a lovely answer. It doesn't remotely answer the question I asked, but it's lovely nonetheless. :p

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by BPSCG
...

As for the rest, well, nobody seemed to object when the U.S. was able to fight multiple, simultaneous major theater wars in 1941. So why the objection today?

...

Er, if you care to review your history you will find that we were attacked by Japan and Germany in 1941.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Thank you (jeezum crow, it's like pulling teeth out of an alligator...).



I don't know anyone who has ever claimed otherwise.



Now, can I assume that your answer means we won't be hearing any more silly claims that "Bush lied about WMDs"?



He certainly did lie. Numerous analysts were disputing the evidence provided that he still had WMD, the agenda of the Bush administration meant that all this was ignored, they wanted Saddam no matter what.

Other people were concerned about Saddam and WMD, for totally justified reasons, the issue was controlled by means other than a disastrous war.



I took the liberty of bolding what you stuck outside the quotes. Since you provided no link (and you've educated me on what a reprehensible practice this is), can I assume that Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al never actually said them and that the claim that the U.S. wanted to "assert its military dominance ove the world" was yours, not theirs?



It is from http://www.newamericancentury.org/. The quote was not so much about the bombastic rhetoric about American controlling the world with it's military might, it was about the interest in China as the next cab on the rank for special military attention.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1470.cfm

After 9/11, China was all of a sudden a best mate.



As for the rest, well, nobody seemed to object when the U.S. was able to fight multiple, simultaneous major theater wars in 1941. So why the objection today?
[B]An allegation which I'm sure you have great festering pustules of evidence to support, I'm sure.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Here is a link to the mindset of the Bush Administration. The link is to a personal blog, but the story is there at the source if you want to pay for it.

http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/002062.html



Rice saw Russia, China as the major threats

The Globe and Mail

Documents reveal Cold War mindset of Bush administration before Sept. 11

By DOUG SAUNDERS

UPDATED AT 9:24 AM EDT Friday, Apr. 2, 2004

In the months and days leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, senior White House officials were obsessed not with Islamic terrorism, but with Russia and China, which they believed posed the most serious threats in the world.

Documents illustrating this Cold War mindset emerged as U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice announced that she will testify next Thursday before a congressional commission into the administration's failure to anticipate or prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. Her 2½ hours of televised testimony will likely focus on her dedication to the superpower rivalries of another era, and her belief that the threat of Islamic terrorism was a relic from the previous administration.

On the day of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Ms. Rice was scheduled to deliver a speech outlining the administration's national security priorities. Instead, she spent much of the day in a secure bunker.

Yesterday, parts of that speech were printed in The Washington Post, and they reveal that her major concern that morning was to dismiss the significance of terrorist threats and to suggest that the "Star Wars" shield against intercontinental missiles was a more important priority. "We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway," she was to say.

"[But] why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?"

Two days earlier, during an appearance on Meet the Press, Ms. Rice had said that President George W. Bush was prepared "to get serious about the business of dealing with this emergent threat. Ballistic missiles are ubiquitous now."

[Dorian Gray]

With all due respect I suggest you are the one "spinning" ....that WMD programs somehow does not involve WMD weapons. You are spinning like your icon. Programs are not weapons. No one ever got hurt by being attacked with a weapons program, or even a weapons program related activity.

Desire is not a weapon, a program is not a weapon, intent is not a weapon, wanting there to be weapons does not make it so, selctively picking intelligence does not make it so, and BP, we all knew your question was a trap. Bush lied, and then blamed someone else for his lie - and he has a history of doing this:
The Texas governor signed a bill naming the portion of a highway that runs through Houston after a notorious abortion doctor,

That's when pro-lifers pleaded with Bush to veto it. He agreed. According to the Lone Star Report, Bush’s top advisor, Karl Rove, assured Texans United for Life Chairman Bill Price: "The governor will not let this [bill] happen."

Bush signed the controversial measure the day after the Senate passed it. Pro-lifers were stunned. Bush later told them in a closed-door conference that he accidentally approved the bill, according to a lobbyist at the meeting, and Bush hinted that he signed the measure without reading it.

In public, Bush’s communications director Karen Hughes, who now heads the campaign press effort, told reporters the bill "was not on our radar screen at the governor’s office." Either he doesn’t care about the pro-life agenda or he is "incompetent," Timothy Laird, the former president of Right To Life Advocates who led the lobbying effort to kill the bill, told me in a recent phone interview. More than two years later, he and other Texas pro-life activists are still fuming.

The more Bush and his advisors explained the blunder, the worse it sounded. Hughes said that Bush signed HB3478 as part of a stack of bills marked "non-controversial" and blamed staffers for putting the measure in the wrong pile. It was a mistake.

Two months later, Bush’s story changed slightly. The legislation "was forwarded to my desk in a stack of non-controversial local resolutions.

"I signed it, as I do all routine local resolutions," Bush wrote in a July 1997 letter to a Houston woman. He offered no apology for breaking his promise and no regrets for naming a highway after an abortionist. Perhaps it was not a mistake.

Now the Bush campaign offers a third story. "No Texas governor has ever vetoed a ceremonial bill such as this," campaign spokesman Eric Woolson told the Associated Press December 9. Woolson made no mention of Bush's mistaken signature or his earlier promise to veto the bill.

Though Bush's first explanation — that he didn’t mean to sign it — is almost certainly correct, how he handled that personal blunder suggests something about his character. He broke his word, shifted the blame, and then tried to pretend that he never made a promise.

Still, it is hard and, ultimately, foolish to base a character assessment on a single episode. But it seems to fit into a pattern.

During his 1994 campaign, Bush signed a pledge never to propose an increase in the state sales tax. In 1997, he broke that promise by proposing a one-half-cent rise in the sales tax, among 57 other tax hikes. Bush denied that he signed the pledge. His staff ran defense. "It is not the governor’s signature on the pledge," Bush spokeswoman Karen Hughes told reporters. "It is either a tracing or an auto-pen of his signature."

Mary Williams, who runs the group that solicited the pledge, was outraged. To prove that Bush gave his word on taxes, she released a 1994 letter from Bush. In that letter, which he signed, Bush promised "never to propose ... an increase in the sales tax." His staff denied he signed that letter, too.

Bush "did not personally sign the letter, though he authorized its content," Hughes explained. What does that mean? wonders Williams. If he "authorized" the content of the letter, doesn’t that mean he promised not to propose sales tax hikes?

After the Clinton administration, Americans need a straight-talking president who will admit his mistakes — not shift blame or issue ever-changing explanations. Bush needs to address these character questions head-on or the questions may define him.

To sum up: Bush has a history of doing things and blaming others when he gets busted. He has a history of changing his story - he has had HOW MANY justifications for invading Iraq now? 23? 24? Also, Bush has a history of raising taxes. That makes his gas tax ad about Kerry a little ironic, don't you think? "Bush raised sales tax and raised taxes 57 TIMES!" it should have added, huh.

What's that saying - Bush can run, but he can't hide? He's a liar, a waffler, and based on his history, he wants to raise your taxes too.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
You are spinning like your icon. Programs are not weapons. No one ever got hurt by being attacked with a weapons program, or even a weapons program related activity.Man o' man you are gonna slice that pie thinner and thinner aren't you. ;) You must really hate Bush.

A "program" in this context is an activity. When Clinton bombed Saddam's WMD "programs" in 1998 he bombed an activity to create WMD weapons. One cannot research WMD, design WMD, test WMD and build prototype WMD weapons unless one develops a WMD program to do this. If no one ever got hurt by being attacked with a weapons program then why did Clinton bomb "it" in 1998?...was Clinton and his advisors as stupid and misguided as you say I am?

Face it Dorian Gray, Clinton thought the "program" was dangerous enough to bomb in 1998 because it leads to WMD weapons. Why you choose to say that WMD programs do not somehow involve WMD weapons - the goal of WMD programs - is rather bizzare.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Man o' man you are gonna slice that pie thinner and thinner aren't you. ;) You must really hate Bush.

A "program" in this context is an activity. When Clinton bombed Saddam's WMD "programs" in 1998 he bombed an activity to create WMD weapons. One cannot research WMD, design WMD, test WMD and build prototype WMD weapons unless one develops a WMD program to do this. If no one ever got hurt by being attacked with a weapons program then why did Clinton bomb "it" in 1998?...was Clinton and his advisors as stupid and misguided as you say I am?

Face it Dorian Gray, Clinton thought the "program" was dangerous enough to bomb in 1998 because it leads to WMD weapons. Why you choose to say that WMD programs do not somehow involve WMD weapons - the goal of WMD programs - is rather bizzare.

Clinton had Saddam under control, without starting a war based on lies and deception.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
He certainly did lie. Numerous analysts were disputing the evidence provided that he still had WMD, the agenda of the Bush administration meant that all this was ignored, they wanted Saddam no matter what.So what you're saying is that even though the evidence was overwhelming that Saddam had WMDs, and it was enough to persuade virtually everyone across the US government's political spectrum from left to right, Bush lied, because he chose to believe the overwhelming weight of the evidence rather than the relatively few doubters? Are you suggesting that unless all the evidence is unanimous and all doubts erased, the president should sit on his hands before making any decisions, lest he end up being branded as a liar?

It is from http://www.newamericancentury.org/. The quote was not so much about the bombastic rhetoric about American controlling the world with it's military might, it was about the interest in China as the next cab on the rank for special military attention.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1470.cfmInteresting...
Here is a link to the mindset of the Bush Administration. The link is to a personal blog, but the story is there at the source if you want to pay for it.

In the months and days leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, senior White House officials were obsessed not with Islamic terrorism, but with Russia and China, which they believed posed the most serious threats in the world.

Documents illustrating this Cold War mindset emerged as U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice announced that she will testify next Thursday before a congressional commission into the administration's failure to anticipate or prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. Her 2½ hours of televised testimony will likely focus on her dedication to the superpower rivalries of another era, and her belief that the threat of Islamic terrorism was a relic from the previous administration.

On the day of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Ms. Rice was scheduled to deliver a speech outlining the administration's national security priorities. Instead, she spent much of the day in a secure bunker.

Yesterday, parts of that speech were printed in The Washington Post, and they reveal that her major concern that morning was to dismiss the significance of terrorist threats and to suggest that the "Star Wars" shield against intercontinental missiles was a more important priority. "We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway," she was to say.

"[But] why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?"

Two days earlier, during an appearance on Meet the Press, Ms. Rice had said that President George W. Bush was prepared "to get serious about the business of dealing with this emergent threat. Ballistic missiles are ubiquitous now."Interesting.

I mean it's interesting that you cite two conservative think tank pieces discussing entirely plausible threats from China, as well as possible responses to them, as evidence that the Bush administration was considering launching a war against China. And you conclude from this that we're all lucky Afghanistan and Iraq came first, else we'd be in a shooting war with the Chinese.

Perhaps things work differently in Australia, but here in the U.S., think tanks don't make policy. They are independent of political parties, although they of course share many ideologies with one party or the other. They may make recommendations to administrations and to congress, based on their research, but have no policy-making role whatsoever.

As for the Rice quote, first off, it says nothing about getting into a war with China (or Russia), only that she considers them to be serious threats to peace.

China has a population of about a billion people, has made no bones about its territorial ambitions, has never been shy about using its military to expand its borders, is in an ambitious program to modernize and enlarge its navy, and has never been interested in protecting basic human liberties. While China was communist and poor, she could never be more than a local nuisance to her neighbors. But now that she is capitalist and increasingly wealthy, anyone who would dismiss her as a possible worldwide danger really needs to put down the dope pipe.

BTW, you've derailed the thread yet again. I thought I told you to stop doing that. If you want to talk about U.S. war plans with China, why don't you start up a new thread?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
...and BP, we all knew your question was a trap. Translation: BP - I can't answer your question without sounding like I have the IQ of a bucket of gravel, so I'm going to complain about your motives for asking it.
Bush lied, and then blamed someone else for his lie - Yes, all those Democrats who were lining up to condemn Saddam's WMDs in 1998 while Bush was still governor of Texas weren't really condemning Saddam's WMDs because they knew he didn't really have them and it was only after Bush became president that he cleverly put those words in their mouths and backdated their statements to provide political cover for his warmongering. And he bribed them all or drugged them all or blackmailed them all to keep quiet and not disavow their WMD statements. The sly rascal.

Yes, in the Dorian Gray world, Bush and his evil puppetmasters were the only people who believed that Saddam had WMDs and even they didn't believe it but they sold a bill of goods to the American people using manufactured statements from their political opponents, including the immediate past president, as justification.

Wow...

[Dorian Gray]

They said he had programs, and didn't invade. Bush said he had WEAPONS, and invaded - and they didn't have weapons.

because he chose to believe the overwhelming weight of the evidence rather than the relatively few doubters? Are you claiming to be privy enough to classified meetings that you know the numbers of intelligence personnel backing each side?

[Dorian Gray]

Your question poisoned the well - and you wonder why we don't drink.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Clinton had Saddam under control, without starting a war based on lies and deception. source (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/) Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. Bush's lies and deception led Clinton under the democrats to bomb Saddam three years earlier during Operation Desert Fox. ;)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Bush's lies and deception led Clinton under the democrats to bomb Saddam three years earlier during Operation Desert Fox. ;) I tell ya, people keep misunderestimating what a sly fox that Bush fella is.

"No, wait!" the lefties cry. "Yes, Saddam did have WMDs at one time, so it was okay for Clinton to launch cruise missiles at him. But he secretly and mysteriously destroyed them the minute Bush became president and wouldn't show anyone any proof that he'd destroyed them! So you see? Bush lied!!!"

Sorry, lefties, you can't have it both ways. Yes, I understand your hatred of Bush is so poisonous you have to wipe the foam off your collective chins every time you hear his name. But you can't let that poisonous hatred get in the way of simple reasoning. If it was justifiable for Clinton to conclude in 1998 that Saddam had WMDs, then in the absence of any intervening evidence to the contrary, it was justifiable for Bush to conclude the same in 2003. If Saddam was playing some weird kind of bluff and Bush got snookered, then you have to conclude that Clinton did also.

Now, which is it?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Your question poisoned the well - and you wonder why we don't drink. I don't wonder that you find a simple, unambiguous question to be tantamount to poison. I myself don't find the question poisonous at all. Here, let me show you: I'll ask it and I'll answer it:

Q: Could you please tell me if you think the quotes I supplied above misrepresent the actual positions of the ladies and gentlemen involved?

A: No, I don't.

There, you see? Perfectly straightforward, easy to answer, consistent with my earlier positions and consistent with the quotations. It's easy to provide a reasonable answer to the question, provided, of course, you haven't painted yourself into an untenable corner by insisting that Bush lied!!! about the WMDs.

C'mon, try it. Even a_u_p was able to growl out a grudging, passive-voice semi-admission that "concern about WMD was entirely justified..." Surely you can do the same.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Er, if you care to review your history you will find that we were attacked by Japan and Germany in 1941. Okay, so are you suggesting that we wait until we are attacked by two countries before we build up our armed forces to take them both on at once?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, so are you suggesting that we wait until we are attacked by two countries before we build up our armed forces to take them both on at once?

Please let me know if, and when, you are actually interested in my reply.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Bush's lies and deception led Clinton under the democrats to bomb Saddam three years earlier during Operation Desert Fox. ;)

I didn't notice any full scale invasions involving thousands of deaths, mayhem and anarchy. Maybe I didn't read the newpaper that morning.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Who said it?

The president sat at his desk in the Oval Office, stared resolutely into the camera, and told us all why he ordered military action in Iraq.

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,� he said. Multinational armed forces would “attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.�

The president explained that the U.N. weapons inspectors’ report was, “stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing� in outlining Iraq’s deceit. “Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.� The time for waiting was over. We could no longer “turn our backs on his defiance.�

The president said Saddam Hussein was a greater threat than other countries with weapons of mass destruction because he had already used them against his own people and neighboring countries. “I have no doubt,� he said, “that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.�

He concluded, “The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.�
More…
The answer is in the next sentence:

So here’s the question I have for those in the Kerry camp: Did President Clinton lie to the American people?