The latest talking point: "Clinton admin also thought Saddam was a threat"

[sabra]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Senate_Iraq.html

WASHINGTON -- The White House sought to deflect politically charged questions Wednesday about President Bush's use of prewar intelligence in Iraq, saying Democrats, too, had concluded Saddam Hussein was a threat.

"If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they've made," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He said the Clinton administration and fellow Democrats "used the intelligence to come to the same conclusion that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a threat."

and last night on hardball:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9890579/

RNC Chairman defends Bush administration

MATTHEWS: Did you know all this? ... the indictment, the investigation. Look, you can argue over the words, but one of the stories that struck me was the way in which we all learned about the WMD. We learned it through the “New York Times,” and we find out now that it was the vice president‘s office that had fed the story to the “Times.”

Don‘t you think we ought to know how these things are done?

MEHLMAN: Look, I think the last administration, the French, the U.N., our intelligence, the CIA, you name it, all believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

MATTHEWS: Nuclear.

MEHLMAN: They all believed that he had all kinds of programs.

And the fact is that because of that and because of a lot of other reasons, we removed Saddam Hussein from power.

Even if it turns out he didn‘t have the stuff, it was the right thing to do because would we be safer if we had waited until he had refilled his canisters? Would we be safer today? I don‘t think we would.

One of the things that every report that‘s investigated this has found is, in fact, Saddam Hussein was more dangerous than we thought, he was more effective in evading the sanctions than people thought. So I think we made the right decision.

I think this is an attempt by the Democrats to have political football.

As I said, they made a mistake when they did it before and they should stop doing it now.

The American people want their leaders to respond to this war on terror with seriousness, not political stunts.

I guess Kenny boy thinks we still might find those pesky WMD's?

[shoelace414]

1. and for some reason Clinton didn't invade the country

[sabra]

5. don't you know? Dems are soft on the war on terra.

:sarcasm:

[afdip]

8. the two never-changing repuke talking points . . .

(1) bill clinton did it and (2) you hate bush so much. we hear this in EVERY repuke conversation.

[MADem]

2. My response: Clinton did not go to war on a lie! n/t

[bowens43]

3. Easy answer to that ridiculous taking point.:

Did Clinton invade and occupy Iraq?

[CottonBear]

4. That's why he enforced the no-fly zone & supported inspections. n/t

[Ready4Change]

26. Plus, when Clinton DID bomb Iraq...

Republicans raised holy hell about it. (At least during his second term.)

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/19981222-IraqAttack.html

[Avalux]

6. So sad; all they can do is blame Clinton 5 years later.

I mean come on - this is so rediculous. :rofl:

[sasquatch]

11. Yep, the magnificance of Clenis forced them to do this

Sort of like the old copout "The Devil made me do it".:crazy:

[afdip]

7. true, the clinton admin. did think this but they did not rush ahead

and invade iraq and immerse the country in a war in which, so far, over 2025 (americans) are dead and some 15000 wounded . . . and untold iraqis.

[Walt Starr]

9. Well Fidel Castro is a threat, too!

You don't see us invading Cuba, though.

:eyes:

[BlueEyedSon]

10. Clinton was also getting BS from the PNAC & INC.

[sabra]

12. you mean, he didn't invade over lies? who would of thought?

:-) peace

[BlueEyedSon]

24. LOL, thx!

[lpbk2713]

13. I saw that msg scrolling on the CNN TV screen a while ago

They never give up, do they?

[neuvocat]

14. So how come Iraq became a greater threat under Bush?

The pukes are going back to their ABC's:

Always

Blame

Clinton

[lazarus]

15. What about their own Secretaries of State?

24 February 2001, Colin Powell:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

[snippy]

16. And how many mad dogs and Englishmen invaded Iraq then?

[Oeditpus Rex]

17. This one's a waste pitch

And only fools would swing at it.

It matters not one whit what Clinton thought. What matters is what he did — and didn't — do about it.

Pssst... hey, Scotty, come closer. I want to hit you very, very hard. :grr:

[Midlodemocrat]

19. Totally Agree. What he thought and what he did are

two very different things.

[Loonman]

18. This tends to come up a lot

Even though it's 100% irrelevent, now.

[underpants]

30. --- correct they have run this up the flag pole several times --

no one ever salutes so they take it down and try something else.

A co-worker told me that Rush played all kinds of sound bites of Dems saying that Saddam was dangerous and such. Many were probably out of context (about Desert Fox) but even if they were they were wrong too.

[deadparrot]

20. Yeah, well Clinton didn't declare war.

He didn't kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and incite an insurgency and a whole new generation of energized al-Qaeda fanatics. He didn't send over 2000 of our soldiers to die, and HE DIDN'T LIE ABOUT EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY AN INVASION.

Jesus. :grr:

[lpbk2713]

23. And Clinton didn't change a budget surplus into a record deficit

and ravage the economy in the process. Our grandchildren will be paying the tab the BFEE has rung up when they reach our age. (Assuming there will still be a USA at that time)

[eallen]

21. It's not about the Iraq war. It's about corruption in the White House.

The issue isn't just that Bush was wrong, but that he purposely fixed the intelligence, and that in fact WMDs were not the reason he took the US to war.

[stopbush]

22. Both parties believe there's poverty in this country.

It's the solution offered to fix a problem that's at issue, not the problem itself.

[longship]

25. That dog won't hunt.

Iraq's status (and Saddam's) during the Clinton administration is entirely different than that during the Bush administration. Sanctions were working (many claim, too well) during Clinton. Saddam was being disarmed.

As the arms inspectors reported, once Saddam agreed to cooperate, they were able to destroy nearly all the arms which remained. Chimp and Co. had all this information at their fingertips but they chose to ignore it.

The facts here are plain as day. But that won't stop these LYING FUCKING BASTARDS from saying that Clinton agrees with ChimpCo.

We ought to write Big Dawg and ask him to make a public debunking on this talking point.

Take these fuckers down.

[Oilwellian]

27. Scotty used the same excuse today

Q Scott, what did the White House make of what happened in the Senate yesterday?

MR. McCLELLAN: What did we make of it? Do you have a question about it?

Q Yes, what do you make of it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Senators talked about it.

Q I’m just wondering what you all think — what you all think.

MR. McCLELLAN: They talked about it yesterday.

Q I’m just wondering what you all think of it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they’ve made.

Q Was it a stunt, as some Republicans have suggested?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you heard Democrats — some Democratic leaders saying that they wanted to look at how the intelligence was used. The intelligence — how the intelligence was used was all part of the public record –

Q It’s not –

MR. McCLELLAN: — and it goes back to the previous administration and it goes back to Democratic leaders. I mean, they might want to look at how the previous administration and Democratic leaders — you know, Senator Reid may want to look at how the previous administration and Democratic leaders, such as himself, used the intelligence to come to the same conclusion that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a threat.
http://thinkprogress.org/november-2-press-gaggle/

[yankeedem]

28. More deflection from the Personal Responsiblity Party

nt

[LisaLynne]

29. That's weak, even for them.

For one thing, *co wasn't saying that Saddam was merely "a threat" -- he was going to mushroom cloud us into oblivion in 5 seconds. That's why they HAD to INVADE RIGHT THEN! No time for inspections or even to listen to what anyone in the entire world had to say. Just start bombing because he was that much of an IMMEDIATE threat.