1
   

DNC says what?

 
 
Crunch
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 11:46 pm
I'm so happy.

Quote:
KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?

CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.

First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.

KING: So do you share that view, Senator Dole?

DOLE: Oh, he's exactly right. Let's put the focus where it belongs.

I never got to be president. I tried a couple of times. But President Clinton understands better than anybody that he gets piles and piles of classified, secret, top secret information, and I don't know how many, maybe the president can tell me. I don't know how much of this goes across your desk every day. It probably shouldn't have been in the message.

But that's history. It's passed. We can't change it. And we need to focus on the real problem.

KING: What do you do, Mr. President, with what's put in front of you?

CLINTON: Well, here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech.

I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks...

DOLE: That's right.

CLINTON: ... of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there.

KING: Yes.

CLINTON: And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?

We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way. But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence. Then they said on balance they shouldn't have done it. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 997 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2003 09:46 pm
I was watching King and nearly choked on my pretzel. (It can happen.)

I can't see any possible reason for Clinton to say this, except he believed it. I'm just a little concerned for him. Has anyone seen him since then?

I thought it was a stand-up thing to say. Smile
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2003 09:50 pm
1. he was probably being honest
2. the presidents club has obligations
3. both he and bush are likely to be called for the 9/11 investigation
4. he could be telling the DNC to tone down the rhetoric and stick to basic issues.
5. he is not the epitome of evil
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 06:22 am
dys:

The problem is that to me, and many other "True Democrats" Bush's lies about WMD is a basic issue.

PS. I guess I make my support for Dean official today as I volunteered to help at a table!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 06:28 am
I have long criticised Clinton for being a pseudo Republican in his actions. He often co-opted Republican themes during his presidency and that was the reason I voted Green when he ran against Dole.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 06:58 am
In a sense, i agree with Clinton. We've passed the point of no return: Saddam is ousted and those troops are in Iraq Thats reality. We should indeed be pulling for the people of Iraq.

though, if we let Bush get away with this so easily, who knows what his next step is.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 07:06 am
edgarB ditto
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 07:17 am
addition:

"We should be pulling for the people of Iraq." But why haven't we pulled a bit earlier? f.i. By refusing to support Hussein in the first place, by refusing to supply him with weapons and to show him how to make still others, by supprting the popular revolt and and not betraying them like Bush Sr did.

Was this man pulling for the people of Iraq?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 10:28 am
Do you understand that as times change, foriegn policy changes? I guess not from your comment above. The US tends to follow the "lesser of 2 evils" foriegn policy. At the time we were supporting Saddam, Iran was the bad guy and we were heavily involved in the cold war. As times change, so has our foreign policy. Deal with it.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 04:53 pm
We don't need a Bush to botch it up this way. We will be dealing with it for generations now trying to undo his policies.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DNC says what?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 02:16:45