Bush says he inherited policy of "regime change" from Clinton

Associated Press ^ | Jan. 12, 2004

[smallchild]

From article:

"Bush says he INHERITED a policy of "regime change" in Iraq from the Clinton administration and ADOPTED it as his own. He says the administration was working out its policy when Nine-Eleven hit.

This is the English language that was actually used.

[smallchild]

What is a "troll?"

[kevkrom]

And FWIW any sitting president had better have a war plan in place for every dirt pile on the globe.

Right on! We used to keep war plan for Canada, for cryin' out loud.

[Howlin]

Here is exactly what he said: (he never said ONE WORD about Clinton or inheriting anything):

And, no, the stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear. Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with Desert Badger, or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines. And then, all of a sudden, September the 11th hit. And as the President of the United States, my most solemn obligation is to protect the security of the American people. That's my -- to me that's the most solemn thing an American President -- or any president -- must do. And I took that duty very seriously.

Now, what part of FEDERAL LAW don't you understand?

Congress First Voted to Back Regime Change in Iraq in 1998

The Liberation of Iraq Act

Representative Benjamin Gilman (Republican of New York) introduced H.R. 4655 September 29, 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998.

Gilman's bill passed in the House of Representatives on a 360-38 vote October 5, and the Senate approved H.R. 4655 by unanimous consent on October 7.

Clinton signed the bill into law October 31.

The Iraq Liberation Act cited Public Law 105-235 of August 14, 1998, which had declared the Baghdad regime was "in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations," and urged President Clinton "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

The Iraq Liberation Act said once Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the United States "should support Iraq's transition to democracy."

The Act had strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, then controlled by Republicans. Republicans backed the bill by a 202-9 margin with 16 not voting. Democrats lined up behind the bill 157-29, with 20 not voting, and the House's sole Independent voted for H.R. 4655.

The Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act by unanimous consent, a Senate bill with the same language had been co-sponsored by six Republicans and two Democrats, including Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) and then Senator John Ashcroft (Republican of Missouri), the current Attorney General.

In the House, those backing the bill included House Minority Leader Representative Richard Gephardt (Democrat of Missouri), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (Republican of Illinois), Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (Democrat of Texas) and Representative Constance Morella (Republican of Maryland).

[Howlin]

Take a look at 144, dimbulb. It was passed by Congress in 1998.

And as for this:

I appreciate your efforts supporting the RNC and President Bush.

They are not efforts; the truth doesn't need "efforts," as you say.

It is so hard to protect a candidate from his own statements.

What's even harder is to protect a candidate from outright lies, especially when they come under the guise of somebody being on our side.

Once made, the incorrect statement has to be corrected or ignored.

Well, since he never said it, it doesn't have to be corrected OR ignored does it.

You fell for the AP bulls**t, sucker.

And I certainly don't need appreciation from somebody actively working to misconstrue and distort the policies of this administration -- especially when you're trying to hand this country over to the liberals. The DNC, however, thanks you.

[smallchild]

I don't follow you here.

You say he never said ONE WORD about Clinton.....that he only said "like the previous administration".

I assume that we know better than to argue about the word "about!"

I did assume he meant the Clinton administration. Didn't you?

Then you post the 1998 FEDERAL LIBERATION OF IRAQ ACT, which shows that the "previous (Clinton) administration" and Congress was addressing these issues.

This seems to contridict your reasons for claiming my original assertion false.

I can't understand where you find any difference between what I am saying and you are, other than different words.

[Howlin]

I don't follow you here.

I know:

This is what this article says at the top of this thread:

Bush says he inherited a policy of "regime change" in Iraq from the Clinton administration and adopted it as his own.

He never said any such thing. He said what he said -- and he didn't say he adopted it......it's the damn policy of the United States of America.

[Howlin]

Then you post the 1998 FEDERAL LIBERATION OF IRAQ ACT, which shows that the "previous (Clinton) administration" and Congress was addressing these issues.

Did you read what I posted? It was written and sponsored by A REPUBLICAN......and Clinton only signed it. It wasn't HIS idea, but now it's the law of the land.

You have been trying to insinuate that he accepted a Clinton policy, when he clearly accepted a CONGRESSIONAL policy.

[Howlin]

Another site that I would like to recommend that has a critical essay on our military missteps on the war on terror can be found at the American War College site. It is not only related to the military, but discusses the effects of the economics of being able to continue our overseas defense as well as improve our homeland defense measures. The gist of the article is that we have to choose our priorities and adjust to fourth generation warfare while still preserving an economy that can sustain our military obligations.

Better watch Brit Hume's show tonight; it seems that that article you're using to bolster your opinion was written by ONE MAN -- a Democrat who worked for Senators Benson and Nunn -- and it is NOT the opinion of the United States Army OR the American War College.

So far, you and Howard Dean are the only ones who agree with it.

[smallchild]

Posted by Howlin to smallchild
On News/Activism 01/13/2004 2:31:52 PM PST #144 of 148

Here is exactly what he said: (he never said ONE WORD about Clinton or inheriting anything):
And, no, the stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear. LIKE THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, we were for regime change.

I can't understand why you are nit-picking about the words "previous administration", (nor why I am anymore!)

The 1998 bill you mentioned wasn't very prominent in the public mind prior to the invasion of Iraq. Its mention at such a late date to the public is the source of much confusion.

[Howlin]

The 1998 bill you mentioned wasn't very prominent in the public mind prior to the invasion of Iraq. Its mention at such a late date to the public is the source of much confusion.

By "public" do you mean you? It's not our fault you missed a vote by the Senate and the House on something that important.

And in case you still don't understand, confusion on the part of the Democrats IS the name of the game. They want you to ignore the fact that it's the country's policy, and instead try to blame it on Bush, just like they want you to forget that every single thing Bush said about the WMD were the same words every leader of the free world, including Bill Clinton, said.

And it seems to be working.

[smallchild]

So you are saying that the Bush policy is the same as the Clinton policy, at least in this post.

Every post you make seems to contradict your previous one.

That is the source of the confusion.

You seem to imply Bush should be "blamed" for our Iraq policy:

"... the fact that it's the country's policy, and instead try to blame it on Bush..."

If you do not like Bush's policy, this is what you would say. But I know you do support his policy. So why do you say this?

[Howlin]

I am going to say this one more time; if you don't understand it, don't post back to me.

It is the LAW of the land, not some administration's.

It is not and was not Clinton's policy; it was written by a Republican and passed by both houses on Congress.

[meenie]

Are you a Howard Dean fan? You can't be a conservative.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

The plans to invade and replace Saddam were not Federal Law, which was the first part of my response.

The "Secret" documents O'Neil released without clearance which are now being investigated (the second part of my response) are indeed Federal Law violations, and yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. O'Neill blew it big time! (Along with other documents if they too were classified!)

I'm saying the man (O'Neill) was NOT involved in the "transition team" part of the Bush administration, and was not privy to "knowing" that the plans he says he saw "10 days" into this administration taking office, were actually part of the Clinton administrations plans for handling Saddam Hussein, as Saddam was firing on our pilots and raising hell all the time as it was.

If people remember that period Saddam Hussein was causing a TON of grief. It is common to have contingency plans in place, ESPECIALLY during the transition of one presidency to another so we have a smooth transition of power.

This whole thing is going to go be quite embarrassing for those making a big thing out of it.

My point being.. "THIS IS THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATIONS SADDAM HUSSEIN PLANS". Trust me on this one! And if it isn't their exact plan.. then it was President Bush's people, revising the Clinton plan to be their OWN!!

But I can assure you, there was ALREADY a WAR PLAN, and A POST WAR PLAN in effect and ON PAPER before President Bush ever took office!

FRegards FRiend :o)

[Brilliant]

He says that he inherited it from Clinton. If it predated him, then it predated 911.