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

Associated Press ^ | Jan. 12, 2004

[Alissa]

Monterrey, Mexico-AP -- President Bush is declining to criticize former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who claims in a new book that the White House planned to topple Saddam Hussein before Nine-Eleven.

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.

The president made the comments during a news conference with Mexican President Vicente Fox. Fox was an opponent of the Iraq war but congratulated the U-S for capturing Saddam.

[Howlin]

Well, thank God somebody on FR finally printed the damn truth on this thread!

As for this:

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.

THAT IS AN OUT AND OUT LIE: HE SAID NO SUCH THING....

Q Thank you, President Fox. President Bush, is it true, as your former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says, that you started planning for the invasion of Iraq within days of your inauguration? Do you feel betrayed? And should he have released those documents?

PRESIDENT BUSH: First, let me say, I appreciate former Secretary O'Neill's service to our country. We worked together during some difficult times. We worked together when the country was in recession, and now we're coming out of recession, which is positive news. We worked together when America was attacked on September the 11th, which changed how I viewed the world. September the 11th made me realize that America was no longer protected by oceans, and we had to take threats very seriously no matter where they may be materializing.

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.

And as you know, not only did we deal with the Taliban, we gave -- working through the United Nations and working through international community, we made it clear that Saddam Hussein should disarm. And like he had done with a lot of previous resolutions, he ignored the world's demands. And now he's no longer in power, and the world is better for it. The Iraqi people are better for it; America is better for it; Mexico is better for it. The world is more peaceful as a result of Saddam Hussein not being in power.

And the task at hand, Mr. President -- and he and I -- he knows this fully well -- is to make sure that the aspirations of the Iraqi people are allowed to flourish. And we'll get there. It's a tough task right now. It's hard work, but we've done hard work in the past. And a free Iraq is going to be in the world's interest.

Thank you very much.

[Howlin]

See above.

[Howlin]

As an aside, that guy you told me this after -- the one you said always tells the truth -- I believe you said his name was Pat Buchanan, remember? -- well, he was on Keith Olbermann tonight and guess what -- he has COMPLETELY CHANGED his opinion about that since this VERY AFTERNOON.

Now, was he lying in the afternoon, or is he lying now?

[Dilbert56]

Shame on any of us that thought the AP had written an accurate headline. In this case, history was a good predictor of the future. Why would they start getting it right now?

[optimistically_conservative]

I hope I don't have to rant ...

Rant away trolls.

concerning the reasons for war in Iraq, all based on something other than what is now appearing as the truth, or "new version" of it.

As I understood the debate leading up to the war, much of the disagreement did focus on the issues being raised now.

1. Did Saddam's regime pose a threat, direct or indirect, to the US and/or her allies? What was the scope of the threat?

2. If yes, was that threat immediate (interchangeable with imminent for our purpose?) so as to justify a pre-emptive attack by the US, either unilaterally or with limited international support (because realpolitik would have authorized any action not opposed by UN veto holders)?

I think Wolfowitz accurately described the multiple concerns in the administration leading to war with Iraq. He stated those concerns in his Vanity Fair interview as, "One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."

This was not a pre-emptive war in the sense of foiling an imminent attack. Bush never made the pre-emptive argument against Iraq alone. It was within the context of the war on terrorism. It was never a case of intercepting the Japanese navy in the Pacific on 6 Dec 1941. Bush did quote Kennedy from October 1962, describing the threat that the USSR posed during the Cuban missile crisis.

If Saddam wasn't an imminent threat, why did we have to contain him every day for the last 12 years? Was it because the threat of the "axis of evil" to the US was indirect; they were only direct threats to their region (and therefore our allies)? How prescient was Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on PBS NewsHour, February 9, 1998?

Most Americans were fully prepared to accept the proposition that Saddam Hussein is a very bad actor, and news accounts about his possibly having stockpiles of biological weapons have been running for months. So I believe that the American people have a very cursory knowledge, at least, of the need for some limited action against Iraq. And I don't think that they would be taken aback by limited military action. After all, we've done it before in 1993 and 1996. I don't think the Clinton administration, as some of my colleagues have already pointed out, has done an effective job first of all of preparing the American people for a more substantive military action if, in fact, that is necessary, but, more to the point, I don't think the Clinton administration has prepared the American people for the fact that we might have to go after Saddam Hussein again and again and again. They don't understand why, in fact, if this guy is such a bad actor, we don't just go in and take him out once and for all.

So, in Saddam Redux IV: The Post 9-11 Great-Great-Grandchild of all Battles, there seemed to be two chains of logic among the war supporters (not counting the "lesser" humanitarian reasons put forward in Bush's and Powell's speeches):

1. Saddam has WMD => Saddam has ties to terrorists => terrorists hurt us badly => terrorists want to do it again => take out Saddam before he gives WMD to the terrorists.
2. Islamic extremism fuels terrorism => the fountain of Islamic extremism is spread across the Middle East => war on terrorism requires hegemony in the Middle East (the corollaries being isolation from the Middle East is impossible and the status quo unacceptable) => implementing the long standing plan (i.e. since 1991) for regime change in Iraq significantly increases our hegemony in the Middle East (in a way Afghanistan did not).

The first thought process was narrower in focus (Iraqi WMD to terrorists) than the second (remake the Middle East). Both were marketed, along with the humanitarian reasons.

Before the war, the serious war skeptics challenged the weak links in the logic chains. The fact that WMD was emphasized by the administration (for bureaucratic consensus) and substantial WMD evidence has not been found, has given the Bush critics and less serious war skeptics the opportunity to create the post-war perception that the causus belli was pre-empting an imminent WMD attack on America by Iraq, and that that was the only reason offered.

The "Bush lied" mantra concerning WMD in Iraq is a dangerous gamble. I'm convinced Saddam had WMD in 1991, when we were exposed to chemical weapons at Khamisiyah and elsewhere during cleanup ops.

I think he still had them in 1995, when Kamel defected providing proof of Iraq's deception and continued efforts in it's WMD programs. To be fair, Kamel said Iraq did not possess WMD in 1995. He also said it really was a baby milk factory we bombed in 1991 (and again in 1998) and there was no military significance to the air defense shelter we bombed.^{39, 40} But the documents on his chicken farm and the discovery by Dr.Diane Seaman on 25 September 1997^{41, 42} throw into question Kamel's denials of weapons. In addition, remarks by Khidhir Hamza contradicted Kamel's claims, and in return Kamel attacked Hamza's credibility in the UN transcript.

There was consensus through 1998, 2001 and 2002 by the world's intelligence agencies (including the CIA, Canadians and BND), within Congress (including Democrats) and from UNMOVIC that Iraq was pursuing WMD.

Now we are starting to find the stocks that were never destroyed as Iraq claimed, but recently hidden:

Adnan Khalifa, an Iraqi who lives near the sealed-off area, told a Danish TV2 reporter in Basra that he helped bury the mortar shells three years ago. "We also dumped some of them in the river," he said.

Some Iraqis have said there are several caches of mortar shells in the area, including a stockpile dumped in the Tigris River that could contain as many as 400 shells, army officials in Denmark said.

[Howlin]

I'm really ill now. I hate all these people.

[Happy2BMe]

Bush has his hand full - alligators up to the eyebrows.

He was the man for the plan when it came to Afghanistan and Iraq.

For whatever unearthly reason, the advice he is getting now on how to approach and resolve the immigration crisis is just not working.

W R N TRUBBEL

[blackdog]

Welcome to the very very brief attention span of the American public. It's no wonder we confuse the world! We go thru sixty three news cycles before the rest of the world forms an opinion on the results of our news cycle number one.

I'd also like to spread the rumor that polling group firms are speading SARS and that polling/focus group participants are really suicide bombers waiting for the right question.

That should help.

[Robson]

Rant away trolls.

Hey, way to raise the level of discourse.

[Donna Lee Nardo]

LOL! They are trolls only a few days into their trolling duties, most definitely. I am glad that both you & Howlin spoke up to correct the record on this thread.

[Howlin]

For whatever unearthly reason, the advice he is getting now on how to approach and resolve the immigration crisis is just not working.

Well, by all means, don't vote for him then.

[optimistically_conservative]

Hey, way to raise the level of discourse.

It was a long post for such a short retort. Were you unable to read past the first line newbie?

[Happy2BMe]

"Well, by all means, don't vote for him then."

NewsWeek Poll - President Bush's National Job Rating at 54%

[Robson]

It was a long post for such a short retort. Were you unable to read past the first line newbie?

Yes, I'm new to this "Inter-web" of yours, and thus it's difficult for me to read past the first line of most forum posts.

As for the short retort, that's because the only portion of your post that addressed mine was "Rant away trolls".

There was nothing in your (yes, admirably lengthy) post actually addressing the issue I'd raised -- namely, President Bush taking cover in 1998's House Resolution 4655 and presuming that a vague policy of regime change justified a preventive invasion of a sovereign nation.

[Happy2BMe]

"Then don't vote for him."

Trust me, you would have to look long and hard to find anybody at a district level of any Republican Party office in the country who would repeat what you just said.

NewsWeek Poll - President Bush's National Job Rating at 54%

[blackdog]

"Level of discourse"

I have not heard such nonsense for about four years now. Some phrases are so Clintonian.

Stirrin up a hornets nest, throwin cowpies, starin down a bear, sure.......

But no level of discourse. What does it mean? Ratchet up the jabber? Cry in yer beer? It's too boring a phrase for Bubba. That's a Maddie phrase for sure.

[optimistically_conservative]

Trust me, you would have to look long and hard to find anybody at a district level of any Republican Party office in the country who would repeat what you just said.

Was that meant for me?

[Jeff Chandler]

Welcome to Freerepublic!

[Happy2BMe]

Trust me, you would have to look long and hard to find anybody at a district level of any Republican Party office in the country who would repeat what you just said.

Was that meant for me?

Meant for Howlin - thanks!

[Howlin]

You won't make a difference. Don't vote for him.

Frankly, I don't want people voting for him that want to "sell" their vote over one issue.