Reply
Sun 18 Sep, 2005 11:58 pm
September 19, 2005
Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.
Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."
The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Bush said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme. Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.
The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton.
On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29. People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.
"If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton. He agreed that some responsibility for this lay with the local and state authorities, but pointed the finger, without naming him, at the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
FEMA boss Michael Brown quit in response to criticism of his handling of the Katrina disaster. He was viewed as a political appointee with no experience of disaster management or dealing with government officials.
"When James Lee Witt ran FEMA, because he had been both a local official and a federal official, he was always there early, and we always thought about that," Clinton said, referring to FEMA's head during his 1993-2001 presidency.
"But both of us came out of environments with a disproportionate number of poor people." On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included.
"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts," he said. "We have never done this before.
Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."
Clinton added: "We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense."
I bet the thing they hate about Clinton is that everything he says makes so much sense.
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
""If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
woiyo wrote:http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
""If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
We (the US along with the UN) want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Daddy Bush did it right. Why did Junior have to be a shoot em up cowboy?
Mission accomplished indeed!
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
As you can see, several distinguished politicians felt the threat was clear and the danger present. Daddy Bush did not have the same conditions present during his time. Our mission then was to remove Iraq from Kuwait.
This is the politics of politics. People changing their positions not because they believe them, but due to the politics.
woiyo wrote:http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
""If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
ehttp://photobucket.com/albums/v200/jssbrbr/party/
explain to me how this statement in any way contradicts or excuses the facts of the
incredible cluster f*ck bush has made of the Iraq situation.....
Note the words If necessary. Was it necessary or a last resort when Bush began his war? The answer to that is no. The inspections were on going and had not uncovered any WMD's. And as we all know now there were none to be found. What was the urgency to launch the preemptive attack?
We are paying the price for Bush's folly in blood and treasury.
I saw the interview on the TV and as usual Clinton hit a home run.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:woiyo wrote:http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
""If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
ehttp://photobucket.com/albums/v200/jssbrbr/party/
explain to me how this statement in any way contradicts or excuses the facts of the
incredible cluster f*ck bush has made of the Iraq situation.....
Never said it did, pal.
Just pointing out an apparent change in his view. In his '98 quote, he seemed convinced of the apparent clear and present danger.
and from his speech he gave the idea HOW, that he changed his mind and did not find Saddam to be a dangerous man at some point?
BBB
President Clinton and Senator John Kerry were lied to along with everyone else in the Congress. I'm amazed that Clinton held to his resolve not to criticize Bush as long as he did. I guess he had to choose between that and protecting his country. I applaud his decision.
I was furious when the Congress voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq without returning to them for approval. That was the most stupid event of the entire debacle. No one thought the president of the United States would lie to the people as he did.
Now, the Republican Right Wing will dispute that Bush lied, that he really believed Saddam had WMDs. BS! I fault Bush for believing everything Vice President Cheney et al tells him. I guess Bush never believed Cheney would lie to him.
The lesson to be learned is that scoundrels lie to achieve their agenda. Another lesson to be learned is to challenge and be suspicious of ideological political authority.
Ronald Reagan said it best, "Trust, but verify." The Congress never thought that they would have to apply that to George W. Bush. They should have, but they didn't.
BBB
America's "Mental Defectives" Confront Iran
Opinion: America's "Mental Defectives" Confront Iran
By Walter C. Uhler
Bush Watch
On a recent visit to a periodicals room in the Joe Paterno wing of Penn State's Pattee Library I ran across a fascinating journal, The Long Term View, published by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. Its Spring 2004 issue was entirely devoted to the question, "Why We Seek War" and its editor, Lawrence R. Velvel, commenced his introduction by asserting: "The United States is a nation which seeks war. We better change or we may end up destroying ourselves and perhaps even the world." [p.3]
http://mslmedia.com/LTV/
AND
http://mslmedia.com/LTV/vol6no2.pdf
Mr. Velvel provides some twenty-one reasons why Americans seek war, but I was especially intrigued by reason number six: "Government is incompetent and its leaders stupid." [p.9] Velvel offers many persuasive reasons for government incompetence (which should not prevent us from acknowledging widespread incompetence in the private sector), but he's less persuasive when attempting to explain why leaders become stupid.
True, Velvel gets close when he observes: "politicians, who run government, care little about truth, accuracy, honesty, or any of those other disposable attributes. They care far more about what can be spun, sold, and made to sound good, so that they will get votes." [Ibid.] Were one to add that most politicians these days are driven by ideology, then he arrives at our present day phenomenon: the ideological moron.
"President Clinton and Senator John Kerry were lied to along with everyone else in the Congress."
Oh..I see.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I am getting dizzy from the spin. Please stop.
woiyo wrote:blueveinedthrobber wrote:woiyo wrote:http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
""If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
ehttp://photobucket.com/albums/v200/jssbrbr/party/
explain to me how this statement in any way contradicts or excuses the facts of the
incredible cluster f*ck bush has made of the Iraq situation.....
Never said it did, pal.
Just pointing out an apparent change in his view. In his '98 quote, he seemed convinced of the apparent clear and present danger.
Here is a transcript of the much touted clinton speech in
full
Clinton did not just change his mind with the political winds. What he said was that we should have gone on with the inspections to let them do their work and we should have had more allies. (words to that effect)
Now we know that there were not any weapons of mass destruction. If we had let the inspections continue we would have known that without all the loss of life.
On meet the press he had more to say. He said what he said on This week but he said that now we are there and we got to get this right.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9327333/
Quote:MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the war in Iraq has hurt the U.S. image in the world?
MR. CLINTON: I do. I think it's been a net negative, partly because we went in there before the United Nations finished the job of the inspections, which undermined the credibility of the original argument for needing the authority to use force. I think that was a big mistake. And on the other hand, Saddam is gone and 58 percent of those people voted. That's an even higher percentage of people than voted in America in 2004, when we were proud of our turnout and when nobody's life was at risk. So there's still a chance this will work. And if it does, there's still a chance it will be a net plus for the Middle East. But it--I think that most people saw it as premature, unilateral and taking away from the real fight against terror in Afghanistan and against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Again, he makes a lot of sense.
Obviously, Bubba has limited memory. Saddam was not letting the inspectors INSPECT!!!!!
woiyo wrote
Quote:Obviously, Bubba has limited memory. Saddam was not letting the inspectors INSPECT!!!!!
It would appear as if the bad memory belongs to you. The Inspections were ongoing when the macho man decided to invade.
au1929 wrote:woiyo wrote
Quote:Obviously, Bubba has limited memory. Saddam was not letting the inspectors INSPECT!!!!!
It would appear as if the bad memory belongs to you. The Inspections were ongoing when the macho man decided to invade.
BS - Saddam consistantly gave them a hard time, limiting access and actually removing them at one point.
Be honest for a change.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/0305straw.htm
woiyo
Bush's folly, the invasion of Iraq by Bush occurred after Saddam had acquiesced in all demands regarding inspections. The excuse that the invasion was the result of Saddam's refusal to allow inspections just will not wash.
au1929 wrote:woiyo
Bush's folly, the invasion of Iraq by Bush occurred after Saddam had acquiesced in all demands regarding inspections. The excuse that the invasion was the result of Saddam's refusal to allow inspections just will not wash.
Again, you deal with hindsight being 20/20. No one in Congress or the UN or world opinion believed there were NO WMD. No one felt the inspectors were able to do a thorough inspection, so doubt remained.
Decision were made based upon the general opinion of world leaders that Saddam posed a clear and present danger. Bush decided to act on that information which is what any President SHOULD have done.
That does NOT mean I support HOW he executed the war and how he is handeling the situation today.
I do support his decision to go in intiially.
There was no reason to go into Iraq, The inspection process was ongoing. Face facts, everyone knew Bush was going in regardless. The WMD claim was a canard.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace