Originally posted by Gunslinger
Google: clinton, Iraq, 1998 = 3.74 million hits
Let's not forget about this little gem that the dems NEVER mention
The Iraq Liberation Act
Hmmmmm . . .
Well, no one ever said Saddam was in compliance which was the root of all Clinton's actions--UN compliance. It was linking non compliance to de facto weapons programs that Bush stated flatly we knew without question were there and speciously linking them to 9/11. Those are, again, false assertions that Bush made.
Heck, even Kofi Anan said Saddam should get compliant. So what?
But that is the problem with this specious and laughable defense:
Bush did not invade on non compliance, he invaded on what he said were terrorist related problems linked to known WMD. No association with terrorists or WMD have been found. Had he simply said "I want him dead and he aint compliant" we'd not have had as much support but no one could now call him a liar.
See how that works?
Everyone wanted Hussein gone, but Bush tried to get action on this by Congress on the compliance issue and when the vote failed--in a GOP controlled Legislature mind you--he sent in a new report ith a "new loook" at the same data and said "read this and see if you like it better."
Sure that is not fudging numbers to get your way?
Another problem is we see the standard OP for these guys is lie about anyone who says otherwise. So, if you have a pack of known character assassins saying not to trust the other guy, why believe them? If Bush has a credibility issue, why is that everyone else's fault?
Also, why enunciate a Bush doctrine if it wasn't meant to stand on its own but was really simply a rehash of Democratic doctrine? Neocon doctrine states that all democratic doctrine was appeasement and invasion was imperative to protect American interests. Which is it? Can't have it both ways.
Pre-emptive war is new US doctrine, period. If your first use of it proves to have been errant, blaming it on everyone else is poor behavior, it is immature and simply churlish petulance.
Sakai