Right Wing Settles on Talking Point for Blair Memo

[BurtWorm]

Listen for it, because it will become the only noise you hear from the right on the subject: Clinton's policy was to oust Saddam, so big deal if Bush was set on ousting Saddam eight months before the war.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DRoseDARs]

2. You must be new at this...

It shows.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

8. You guys are not terribly convincing

[DRoseDARs]

9. Yep, very new at this.

Next.

[mzmolly]

11. Mrs. Bush is that you?

:hi:

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

13. Still here?

How old are you?

[mzmolly]

3. I see a "moral American" has arrived?

:hi: "Church" much?

[BurtWorm]

17. The little twirp is now headed home

where he will regale his freeper friends with tales of how he made it all the way to post 13 before getting the can.

[mzmolly]

21. LOL

:hi: Darn, I was really enjoying the blatant hypocrisy?

[brainshrub]

6. For a freeper, you're analysis is deep, but somewhat flawed.

It would have been more correct to say: "Gay Democrats suck cock!"

Buh-bye!

[mzmolly]

19. Then again, how bout White House Reporters with *special* access?

Additionally George Bush has an affinity for horse !@*. I guess that's an aquired taste? :P

[Beaverhausen]

36. But Straight Female Democrats do, too

;-)

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

Hmmmm. Tombstone yet

[DRoseDARs]

14. Well, that's it for him. n/t

:thumbsup:

[NYC Liberal]

12. Dems have already passed HUNDREDS of Fucknut's nominees

Buh-bye!

[jaysunb]

16. What's this ?

:wow:

[DRoseDARs]

20. Freep trolls have the lifespan of fruit fly; this one made it to 16 posts

[jaysunb]

24. Funny !

There was a long rant attached when I went to reply. Actually it was a pretty damning picture of the freepers. I didn't see it on the initial post.

[DRoseDARs]

35. he posted the freeper address in the title, how numb do your nuts....

...have to be to be that much of a numbnuts? Jesus tap-dancing Christ, dude. Awards are not handed out for pissing on an electric fence. Hell, his troll wasn't even worthy of a condescending-chip cookie.

[Beaverhausen]

4. And what exactly was Clinton doing to oust Saddam?

[BurtWorm]

10. Ask Save ANWR

If he's still here in a second.

:eyes:

[mzmolly]

15. You must have gotten his "goat" BW.

Apparently they're getting testy about this new evidence. :evilgrin:

[BurtWorm]

18. He didn't even try to last!

He needs Cialis. :eyes:

[Toucano]

22. Too funny!

Or Dr. Porkenheimer's Boner Juice! LOL!

[BattyDem]

23. According to The Heritage Foundation ... not much!

"President Clinton and Congress need to rethink U.S. strategy toward Iraq. Specifically, this means:
- Developing a comprehensive long-term strategy to overthrow Saddam. The ultimate goal of U.S. policy should be to oust Saddam, not just contain him."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/BG1161es.cfm



"Executive and congressional action is necessary to restore credibility to U.S. policy. Instead of ignoring Iraq's latest act of defiance, the Clinton Administration should develop a credible plan to remove Saddam from power."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/em547.cfm



"Despite Saddam's growing boldness, the Administration clings to its faltering containment policy rather than seeking to oust Saddam."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/EM700.cfm



And let's not forget PNAC's letter to Clinton in January 1998:

"The policy of 'containment' of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months." <snip>

"Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm




So ... Clinton's plans never included lying about WMDs in order to start an unnecessary and illegal war! I guess their talking point is total bullshit ... surprising, isn't it? :eyes:

[mzmolly]

7. Clinton did not lie his way into war. *Smallish tidbit that will surely

be ignored by the free press. :eyes:

[Roland99]

25. Clinton called for Regime Change, .but via internal or diplomatic means

not by pre-emptively invading based upon fabricated reasons.

[walldude]

26. Even if Clinton had a plan to oust Saddam

He did not get up in front of America and claim that he was doing everything in his power to try to avoid going to war. Bush was shouting that shit up until a few weeks before the invasion... I'm liking this memo, it's gaining steam slowly, unlike alot of other stories, this is being picked up alowly but surely, we need to keep it out there until Conyers gets us some answers..

[libertypirate]

27. Responses to that talking point

How with all his advisors is the president that stupid? Why would he distract from the Global war on terrorism for his own ambitions? I don't care what Clinton’s objectives were I wish you and your party would be more focused on what Bush is doing without a damn good reason.

I think it is sad to again bring up Mr. Clinton, was it his fault that Mr. Bush had a desire to go to war before he had a reason? This president is not only a liar he has acted criminally and now you want to use a prior presidency to give the president a walk on his own criminal actions.

Saddam was not the problem the problem was the president "wanted" a war, the president didn't have a reason; he had a desire. People are dying and no one had a damn good reason to send them to their deaths; don't speak to me about morality. No one who does what the president has done is acting out of a moral conscious.

[Jacobin]

28. Funny. I don't recall Clinton invading IraqNam

So, they are now blaming the invasion on Clinton?

funny stuff. I want some of what they are smoking

[Straight Shooter]

29. Republicans and the Clinton crutch.

It's sad. It really is.

[BeFree]

30. 9/11

Didn't happen on Clinton's watch because he would have fired half the defense forces for failing to protect us.

Funny how it has since been proven that Saddam posed NO military threat to the US. Was that because Clinton's orderly control actually worked? And we could have continued the control, with the support of nearly every nation, and foregone the chaos we now have.

Bush lied, many innocent died.

[Disturbed]

33. The memory hole.

"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001

"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
Condoleeza Rice, April 2001

[sandnsea]

31. Jan 10 2001

I've tried all week-end to write something on that memo that doesn't end up sounding "ho-hum, we knew that". Anyway, Bush was planning to go to war with Iraq before he ever even took office. TONS of evidence, including:

"The first indication of a determination to invade Iraq was described by William Cohen, after the release of Bob Woodward’s book, “Plan of Attack”. Regarding the January 10, 2001 Defense Briefing, Cohen says “It was indicated to me that Mr. Cheney wanted me to focus on the briefing, primarily about Iraq, and what our policy was toward Iraq, what our military analysis was, security analysis was, of Saddam Hussein at that time, and not to give a so-called around the world briefing, which is standard operating procedure for incoming presidents…I should say that during the Clinton administration, there was no plan to attack Saddam Hussein in the absence of a provocation by him… What President Bush obviously wanted was something more aggressive, namely in the absence of anything taking place on the part of Saddam towards his neighbors or against us, he wanted the plan updated so there could be a rather significant military operation conducted against him to remove him, and that's where the change was made.”

[madmom]

32. self delete

[KittyWampus]

34. But Then Why Did The PNAC Signatories Send Clinton A Letter Demanding

Saddam's ouster if Clinton was all for it?