|
Bene listening to Sen DeMint talking about how Clinton was for regime change when he was president. I wasn't interested in politics at the time, nor do I find it particularly instructive that the Republicans must reach back into a Democratic presidential time to try to defend the current pres' actions. Would like to talk rebuttal.
-Seems to me that even if Clinton was for regime change, it was not regime change by invading a country, but rather by funding groups. I don't agree with that either but attempting to undermine or change a country through opposition groups is different than an attack.
-Secondly, regime change is explicitly NOT the reason Bush *said* he went to Iraq. In fact, the DSM said that regime change as a reason would not fly with the public, so as Wolfowitz said, WMD was what they could all agree upon. Would the public have gotten behind an invasion of another country for a "regime change" reason? I don't think so.
-I think there's an assumption that Dems view Clinton as some kind of infallible god. I've read some policy statements that I don't agree with-I don't like it that Clinton pushed NAFTA. But IF Clinton happened to agree that Saddam was a bad guy, etc, why would that make it requisite on the new administration to follow Clinton's lead? They didn't on other main issues-the Bush administration has sought to dismantle a large number of Dem programs. And even if Clinton, at the time, believed that Saddam had the capability to produce WMD at that time, so what? At the moment of decision to invade Iraq, it was a time to re-investigate the premises upon which to invade, and the information as consistent didn't pass the smell test.
It isn't just that senator that said it, Rumsfeld said this also in the Pentagon briefing this morning, so it's a point being hammered on
|