[joesbucks]

that Bush's plans on Iraq were practically a seamless continuation of Clinton's policy

Why suddenly is the Clinton administrations plans so dead on when they were so wrong while he was in office?

[Miss Marple]

I believe it is the PENTAGON that is tasked with having contingency plans for invasions, not Bill Clinton. Those plans are done regardless of who is president. Clinton's policy against Iraq was our national policy, which is why we had sanctions and no-fly zones and the like.

[michaelt]

I wouldn't say that Bush's policy was a seamless continuation of Clinton's policy, but the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 made offical US policy getting rid of Hussein and the creation of a democratic government in Iraq.

Source

But I wouldn't call it a continuation of policy from one president to another because the Clinton didn't have the will to carry it out, and Bush did (albeit with the push of 9/11).

[Monti Cello]

Why suddenly is the Clinton administrations plans so dead on when they were so wrong while he was in office?

Let me clarify...Bush's actions were directly in line with Clinton's stated policy -- his follow-through was obviously pathetic.

In other words, war on Saddam was in no way a reversal of existing policy, it was simply a serious enforcement of that policy.

[Joe_October]

Clinton said one thing and did another. Clinton did not personally make the plans up. So, Clinton's security team would have made plans. Clinton would not have employed them (too much black mail material on him).