Skip to comments.
Bush says he inherited policy of "regime change" from Clinton
Associated Press ^
| Jan. 12, 2004
Posted on 01/12/2004 4:30:17 PM PST by 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.
TOPICS: Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush43; clintonlegacy; oneill; pauloneill; regimechange; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-156 next last
1
posted on
01/12/2004 4:30:18 PM PST
by
Alissa
To: Alissa
"Bush says he inherited a policy of "regime change" in Iraq from the Clinton administration..." who inherited it from Bush, Sr.
SHEEEESH, it's amazing how the Vast, LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd is trying to make this into "news"...MUD
2
posted on
01/12/2004 4:34:20 PM PST
by
Mudboy Slim
(RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
To: Alissa
I seem to remember Ari Fleisher answering Helen Thomas's question rgarding Saddam Heussein and Iraq in 2000 with these exact words.......
"The president welcomes regime change in Iraq regardless of what manner it takes place"
How can that be interpreted as anything other than "We have a war plan in place?"
3
posted on
01/12/2004 4:35:15 PM PST
by
blackdog
(I'm hooked on phonics but smoking it is not so easy.)
To: Mudboy Slim
4
posted on
01/12/2004 4:45:56 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is Slavery)
To: blackdog
"How can that be interpreted as anything other than "We have a war plan in place?"
Very easily.
If he said: "We have a war plan in place," it would not need an "interpretation."
To: Alissa
Saddam should have been taken out in GWI.
In this war with Islamis, I just hope we're not too late.
6
posted on
01/12/2004 4:59:33 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: smallchild
There are many subtleties brought forth in many, many attempts before going to war. During the period of those escallating subtleties and then overt discussions, one does not just respond to UPI reporters with "We have a war plan in place". Diplomats need a little room to work ya know.....
And FWIW any sitting president had better have a war plan in place for every dirt pile on the globe. That's his job and that's what our pentagon analysts get paid to do. Please remember that before the era of political correctness the Department of Defense was called the War Department.
7
posted on
01/12/2004 5:03:07 PM PST
by
blackdog
(I'm hooked on phonics but smoking it is not so easy.)
To: Alissa
Well we got regime change. Time to declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and get the troops home safely.
8
posted on
01/12/2004 5:03:15 PM PST
by
ex-snook
(Protectionism is patriotism in the war for American jobs.)
To: BenLurkin
"A turbulent 1998 has ended with political turmoil and military conflict on opposite sides of the globe, reflecting a year which has challenged the certainties of both democracy and dictatorship alike. A sex-and-lies scandal sought to bring down the leader of the world's most powerful nation, just as the United States itself attacked the military machine of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein." I never trusted that DerSchleekMeister wanted to dethrone Hussein...honor amongst thieves, if you will...MUD
9
posted on
01/12/2004 5:07:01 PM PST
by
Mudboy Slim
(RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
To: smallchild
How many other "policies" of Clinton's have we inherited in this administration? Does the campaign rehtoric of a more humble foreign policy and less peacekeeping ring any bells? It all depends on whether is "is". It is odd that these revelations had to come out standing next to Senor Fox, instead of being informed in a format in the United States.
10
posted on
01/12/2004 5:08:26 PM PST
by
meenie
To: smallchild
You mean analogous to when Clinton said, "I want you to listen to me. I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. I never told a single person to lie, not a single time, never."
11
posted on
01/12/2004 5:26:36 PM PST
by
optimistically_conservative
(If you aren't completely satisfied with my post, just send it back within 30 days for a full refund.)
To: meenie
What revelations? We've known all along that regime change in Iraq has been official U.S. policy since the late '90s.
12
posted on
01/12/2004 5:27:57 PM PST
by
alnick
To: Alissa
He's basically admitting that he considered removing Saddam before 911, but so what? He never claimed that the reason we were removing Saddam was because of 911.
To: alnick
Whatever the reasons are may be many or just one. The good thing is Saddam is done! Iraqi kids have a chance to live a dream and have a few toys and the women can be liberated from B.C life times to 2004 life times. Welcome the new Century.
Along with this freedom will also come the bad side of democracy. The Evils of Porn-Homos-Lesbians-Drugs galore-and all other corruptions.
14
posted on
01/12/2004 5:45:07 PM PST
by
ruready4eternity
(The Real Deception is here,can you see it? Turn to the truth - B.I.B.L.E)
To: blackdog
"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." Unless I misread this, Dubya just gave Bill Clinton a huge kudo.
Is that the earth shifting again I hear?
15
posted on
01/12/2004 6:04:50 PM PST
by
Happy2BMe
(Liberty does not tolerate lawlessness and a borderless nation will not prevail.)
To: Alissa
It is a matter of United States federal law:
Congress First Voted to Back Regime Change in Iraq in 1998
Excerpts from this U.S. State Department article:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338). [...]
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).
So what's all the hubbub about?
16
posted on
01/12/2004 6:21:09 PM PST
by
Imal
(The difference between a cult and a religion is popularity.)
To: Imal
So what's all the hubbub about?
I hope I don't have to rant about the significant difference between a policy of regime change and a preventive first-strike war. :)
17
posted on
01/12/2004 6:32:01 PM PST
by
Robson
To: Happy2BMe
Unless I misread this, Dubya just gave Bill Clinton a huge kudo.
Pre-emptive strike against the democrats that are cruticizing his policy
18
posted on
01/12/2004 6:47:37 PM PST
by
uncbob
To: optimistically_conservative
No. That is not what I meant at all. Your analogy is obviously totally irrelevent, albeit humorous. But the situation is not.
There have been thousands upon thousands of posts written here on FREE REPUBLIC 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.
Are all those posts to be sent down the "memory hole?" Where is Winston Smith now that we need him?
Yes, where indeed!!
To: blackdog
An interesting post.
However, I do not see its relevence to the fact that at no time prior to today was I informed that Bill Clinton and G. W. Bush formed a seamless web with regards to war plans inre Iraq.
I do recall being told that I was very fortunate that G. W. Bush was President because of his courage in responding to 911 and the WMD's in Iraq, rather than Clinton or Gore.
I cannot help but wonder, in the face of these revelations, why I was thusly so informed.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-156 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson