Now that the administration is trying to spin the notion...

[Postman]

that before 9/11 our intelligence apparatus left us defenseless because of all the little kingdoms within said intelligence community, how is it that such a large, cumbersome, secretive bureaucracy in essence turned on a dime in providing "good intelligence" regarding Iraq and it's WMD's?

[Failure]

1. That's what makes smirk so hilarious

When he said the Aug. 6th PDB had no information about an imminent attack-yet, he and rummy, and cheney, and rice, and "Bulletproof" evidence on Iraq.

"simply put, Saddam Hussein now has reconstituted Nukylar weapons.

[librechik]

2. it's a setup to blame Iraq on the same thing.

they've been dissing that intelligence ever since their edifice of lies started crumbling to dust.

[peekaloo]

5. Yep. CBS had a preview of the Woodward interview last night

and Woody was making it sound like DimWit was reluctant to go into Iraq based on the intelligence presented to him, YET it was Tenet who convinced him that that the info the CIA possessed was a "slam dunk" against Hussein.

[DShootnstGentemn]

3. pre 9/11 intel

The intel regading WMD's and Iraq was exactly the same that had been used for years. Many on the left even agreed that something had to be done about Iraq/Saddam and WMD's. If you would like names, two notable democrats that supported action against Saddam based on WMD intel were Kerry & Clinton. That fact seems to always get lost in this discussion.

[Failure]

4. Look dude...

Clinton didn't take us to war, kill 10-15 thousand civilians, 700+soldiers and counting...you can't even make a comparison of the two and defend it convincingly.

[DShootnstGentemn]

8. I wasn't comaring the two...

I was making a statement about intelligence.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[PA Democrat]

6. Clinton wanted to remove Saddam

by providing support to IRAQIS to do it. You know, like keeping the promise that poppy Bush broke when he sat back and allowed Saddam to slaughter thousands of Shiites who tried to overthrow Saddam shortly after the first Gulf War.

[DShootnstGentemn]

10. Is that it?

Support the Iraqis? Is that what President Clinton was doing when he sent the bombers in?

[PA Democrat]

15. Those bombing raids were for the purpose of preventing

Saddam from creating more WMD's, NOT for the purpose of "regime change" which has been bush's TRUE policy from day one. Slight difference in the approach of the 2 administrations: containment vs. regime change.

[DShootnstGentemn]

16. Confused

PA, I respect your opinion. However, it seems in reply #6 and reply #15 you are contradicting yourself. In 6 you say that Clinton wanted to assist the Iraqi's in removing Saddam. In 15 you stated that the raids were simply to prevent the SH from making more WMD's, not an attempt @ regime change. It seems to me, regime change and removing Saddam are the same thing.

I am a little confused.

I am also a little confused about the "more" WMD's. I thought that the left had decided that all intel from 93-03 was faulty and there were no WMD's.

Now I am REALLY confused.

[PA Democrat]

17. There is no contradiction

Clinton was willing to use limited force, i.e. air strikes, enforcing the no fly zone to contain Saddam.

However, when it came to a policy of "regime change", his policy was that they would provide assistance to those Iraqis who attempted to affect regime change within their own country. This policy is spelled out in the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. If you are interested, you can read the text of this act at this link:

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Note that this act does not support the commitment of US troops to INVADE Iraq as Bush did. It is authorizing support with financial aid, military advisory assistance, equipment, but NOT US troops.

[DAGDA56]

7. WMD intel? Or believing lies from the President?

By the way, welcome to DU DShoots etc...enjoy your stay.

[DShootnstGentemn]

11. Thanks DAGDA56

I'm prolly just passing through though. I just stopped in to see what was happening. Thanks again!

[Mikimouse]

9. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I concede...

your point regarding Sen. Kerry and President Clinton. I believe, and others may correct me should I be incorrect, that their concern was not about removing Hussein from power, but rather how to do it LEGALLY, just as President Clinton's concern about bin Laden was real, but his actions dictated by LEGALITIES. Funny how that works, sometimes we all want, and in fact plan, to do things to make the international community better, but those darned international laws get in the way. Thank God that we finally have someone in the WH who is not afrain to shred international law.

[DShootnstGentemn]

12. Mikimouse

I appreciate your well thought out response. You may have some valid points there. I however just had a couple a minutes and must go........I'll think about what you said while my Son and I are fishing!

[Postman]

13. Dshoot, I agree with you about the intel part....

But it wasn't as you say "many on the left".

I don't consider Clinton or Kerry "on the left"

As far as foreign policy is concerned, there isn't much difference between Kerry, Clinton or Bush. Its just a matter of style.

Bush's Iraq policy has been reckless.

Kerry has been saying "there was a right way to do this and a wrong way"..that doesn't sound like a peacenik, leftwing approach to imperialist invasion of a non-threat country to me.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

18. Reminder: Sanctions killed more civilians than Shrub has so far.

That's a pretty ugly fact to deal with in case you want to play comparative ethics regarding Clinton and Shrub.

Of course, the sanctions against Iraq's infrastructure were 'legalized' war criminal attacks on a helpless civilian population (see the Geneva Convention) but less visible so they didn't incite the re-inflammation of the Crusades that now has the legs to match that body count in the not too distant future.

Remember Madelaine Albright saying that the body count was worth it when asked in an interview?

Starvation or bombing, which is more virtuous?
We have a long way to go to achieve humanity even with Dems in power.

[damnyankee]

19. It's simple really:

blame Clinton.

I hope that on November 3 they'll be blaming Clinton for a landslide loss to Kerry.