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.

[blackdog]

Did you mean pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation.....Not preventive. Or was that a Freudian slip?

Really my friend, in the Arab world, had baby Bush not ceremoniously dispatched Saddam Huessein and his B'aathists, he'd be the laughing stock of the Arab world.

What Bush has done re: Iraq is just fine with the rest of the world and is long overdue. The American talking heads are the only ones complaining. Empty cans makin a bunch of noise, the whole lot of them.

[Texasforever]

Don't vote for him. What in the heck is so hard about that? Do you just want people to beg you? If so forget it. Vote or don't vote it means nothing.

[Howlin]

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.

You're talking to one right now.

Don't vote for him.

[Texasforever]

Don't vote for him

It really is a simple as that.

[Howlin]

How many other "policies" of Clinton's have we inherited in this administration?

Read post #21; this is NOT what George W. Bush said today.

And you fell for it -- too damn fast.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

What is so pathetic here, is that O'Neill wasn't a part of the "transition team" or he would have "KNOWN" this was part of the security measures already in place by the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION for "if" Saddam acted up!!

All this proves is that President Bush was wise to FIRE him. It proves O'Neill is acting like a jilted lover, like a "Fatal Attraction" intent of "getting even" and basically "killing" any chances the President had of re-election in the upcoming election. The problem is.. it won't work because the truth will come out!

You could see it in his 60 minutes interview. He HATES President Bush! It was so bizarre.

It is only logical that if O'Neill thought this administration and especially the President was so out of touch, so un-ethical, why didn't he resign? Why wait until you are fired?

No, I'm afraid O'Neill is "SO FAR OUT OF TOUCH" and "SO FULL OF REVENGE" that he is even willing to RISK Federal Prosecution.

You see, he SEVERELY underestimated this Administration.

He just broke FEDERAL LAW.

He released SECRET information and did so without clearance.

If he thinks he is going to be allowed to get away with this, he is sadly mistaken. Thats why an investigation has been launched.

President Bush can't AFFORD to let him get away with this. To do so would jeopardize "secret and classified information by employee's who have acess" not only by people in this administration, but for all future administrations! It is imperative for the welfare of our country.

It boggles the mind to imagine why O'Neill even thought he could do this with a man of President Bush's integrity. Boy.. did he ever pick the WRONG man to do this with. He can't be allowed to get away with something so traitorious and so wrong.

Once this investigation is over.. I predict O'Neill will have a lot of "splainin' to do"!!

And even perhaps.. some jail time?

[Howlin]

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.

Clue: That's because it never happened.

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.

You had to be TOLD????

I cannot help but wonder, in the face of these revelations, why I was thusly so informed.

Well, judging by your posts, it's because you don't seem to be able to comprehend the English language, therefore somebody had to explain it to you.

[Happy2BMe]

"Vote or don't vote it means nothing. - Don't vote for him (Bush)"

Who do you recommend?

[optimistically_conservative]

Yes, I'm new to this "Inter-web" of yours ...

It's not mine, but I am grateful for it.

and thus it's difficult for me to read past the first line of most forum posts.

Why is that?

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

My apologies, your post was the difference between regime change and pre-emption. I thought my post was relevant at least to the pre-emption aspect.

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.

Well, I think I did address the pre-emption (or prevention) issue. If not, let me know.

Bush did not take cover in Public Law No: 105-338, THE IRAQ LIBERATION ACT as it relates to the policy of pre-emption. O'Neill is either an idiot or lying, I'm guessing the former. I'm guessing the Pentagon has had plans for regime change since 1991 and they have been reviewed by the NSC regularly. What do you think?

[Howlin]

It really is that simple.

If you don't like the way he's running the country, DO NOT VOTE FOR HIM.

But for the love of God,

STOP TELLING US YOU'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM!!!

[Howlin]

It's not the Clinton administartion policy. It's the FEDERAL LAW, passed by Congress.

[Texasforever]

Who do you recommend?

For anyone you like. You have a whole universe of perennial candidates to choose from. Pick one and work for him and stop demanding others cater to your wishes. See ya at the polls.

[Texasforever]

I would have said "stop demanding we beg you to vote for him".

[optimistically_conservative]

What is it with the thus's and thusly's.

I'm getting the feeling they're the same troll with two accounts, or had the same mommies.

[Howlin]

Who do you recommend?

Judging from the fact that you're asking a total stranger who to vote for, I recommend you don't vote, period.

[Howlin]

Trolling, trolling, trolling....

Come on, hum along.

[optimistically_conservative]

keep those libbies trolling

RAWHIDE!!!

[Howlin]

I would have said "stop demanding we beg you to vote for him".

Needy, aren't they?

They want to crap on this country and want us to applaud them for it.

[elli1]

How can that be interpreted as anything other than "We have a war plan in place?"

I actually heard Ari say this & I interpreted it to mean that any way that Saddam got dead (including even some ''wet work'') would be fine & dandy w/ the folks at the WH.

Of course the WH had a war plan. Given the problems w/ Saddam taking pot shots at planes in the No Fly zone, even the Clinton WH would have had war plans. But I also think that Bush would have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid an invasion--as evidenced by the attempted missle hit on Saddam just before the invasion. I personally think that the WH would have used a contract hit or any other means of eliminating SH short of an invasion if they thought it had a reasonable chance of success...and MO is that is what Ari was alluding to w/ his statement about regime change in any form.

[uncbob]

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

That's just you

Carl Rove will take any and all votes he can get

Since the democrats have positions even more radical on immigration that Bush
WE ARE SCREWEd

Triangulation ala Bill Clinton has occurred in the form of pandering to the Hispanic vote

probably be as successful in making in roads as Reagan's amnesty or show casuiing Powell and Rice at the convention was in getting black votes

Unfortunately there is no serious 3RD party candidate and the GOP has morphed into FDR / Hubert Humphrey/Truman democrats that is to say there is no GOP only left wing cooks and the new democrats ( GOP)