Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't mean this a snipe, but a simple question. Why is it a lie for Bush, when Clinton said the same thing. Based upon what they knew the US Government was convinced Sadaam had WMD, in 1991, 1995, 1998 and 2003. Clinton was convinced at the time he was privy- why should Bush not be convinced. Why is only the second the lie.
One could make the argument that the mistake in the late-90's was the worse mistake. The mistake that Sadaam still had them then created the assumption that the problem could only be worse now. So if it was a lie in 2003, what was it 1998?
|
As I have posted here before, in direct response to you as I recall, air strikes launched by Clinton (Operation Something Or Other) are now credited with destroying Hussein's programs. Also, the sanctions were working. As to the facts on the ground, the answer start there.
For our end, pretending that Clinton and Bush took the same view of what was happening in Iraq is a cute debating trick, but nothing more. Obviously, the intelligence was ambiguous. Clinton felt that containment was appropriate, based on what he was told. Bush decided earlier on, it would appear, that he was not going to follow the same policy, and then -- as Hoagland helpfully explained back in 2002 -- the CIA eventually followed his lead.
