Thank you for a splendid reply, you sre s veritable cornucopia of information. I’m sorry to admit half the reason I added the war question was to satisfy a curiosity that your expansive knowledge on financial matters was that of a one trick pony, but it seems you are well rounded. Impressed by your knowledge of the economy, I truly wanted to get your take on the war, I don’t ask that of many people. Within your accounts I find much validation confirming what I know and find a few things I didn’t.
Perhaps I can return the favor in a small way, even though you more than answered the curveball question factually, you didn’t quite nail the little known but damn sure should be by the left point:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
when clinton signed the Iraqi liberation act of 1998,it cited direct payment to the Iraqi National Congress of $3 million dollars, for:
As required
by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law
105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on
plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My
Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement
a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide,
crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a
step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such
acts.
and goes on to include eliminsting WMD with that. Notice that he said to collect information on ALLEGATIONS, not that any of it was true?
Finally if you look at that link you will see Clinton passed the mike to Chalabi himself to make a statement.
Yet you won’t see this repeated by anyone today. Public law, that the press calling it “Bush’s war” can’t find.
My take condensed is that Bush simply inherited US policy thst was fast tracked after 9/11, and Dems were lock step, I’d even say they egged him on, to do the job Clinton wouldn’t. After a highly successful invasion, they realized they might as well stay home in November 2004 but came up with a plan to #1, completely distance themselves from any responsibility, then #2, tank the sucker.
Enter Joe Wilson whose damage was enormous, being the first to cross the huge chasm between innocent presentation of faulty intel, to an insider stating they knew it was wrong.
The damage was so bad because just weeks later Bush went to Europe to ask NATO for help on the ground, and all they wanted to talk about was lies and yellowcake. Remember he didn’t just write an op-ed in a magazine, that op-ed was a CYA backing away from all his embellishments and lies told to over two dozen media outlets.
Cheers, and mucho respect.
Yes, as I said, there was NOTHING that Bush said about Iraq, about Saddam's support of terrorists and about Iraqi WMDs that (1)was not said by Clinton and Gore up to the very end of their administration and (2)was not said by and agreed to by Clinton and Gore, publicly in 2002/2003, prior to the Iraqi invasion (because the underlying intelligence was the same as what was given to Bush).
My take condensed is that Bush simply inherited US policy thst was fast tracked after 9/11, and Dems were lock step, I’d even say they egged him on, to do the job Clinton wouldn’t. After a highly successful invasion, they realized they might as well stay home in November 2004 but came up with a plan to #1, completely distance themselves from any responsibility, then #2, tank the sucker.
True enough that Bush inherited the "Iraqi regime change" foreign policy, officially adopted by Congress and signed by Clinton. But, it was never Clinton's policy. It was Congressional Republicans that forced Clinton to officially sign-on to a policy that matched the intelligence and the alarms he himself had made about Saddam. Had there not been the GOP in Congress in 1998 pushing for that policy, Clinton would not have come up with it on his own. He signed the Bill only so as to not appear weak on national security, but his heart and his personal efforts were never in it.
"Enter Joe Wilson whose damage was enormous, being the first to cross the huge chasm between innocent presentation of faulty intel, to an insider stating they knew it was wrong........The damage was so bad because just weeks later Bush went to Europe to ask NATO for help on the ground, and all they wanted to talk about was lies and yellowcake. Remember he didn’t just write an op-ed in a magazine, that op-ed was a CYA backing away from all his embellishments and lies told to over two dozen media outlets."
Joe-the-liar-Wilson had no lack of help from the media, which helped him conflate his trip into two things that his trip was not.
(1)it was not a definitive rejection of the Bush statement that "Saddam had recently attempted to purchase yellow cake in Africa". (A)Wilson's trip to Niger and Niger alone does not equal Africa. (B)Regardless of what conclusions Wilson came to, the CIA did not have a consensus opinion (after Wilson's trip) that agreed with Wilson and in one regard (conversation between Wilson and an ex-official from Niger) what was told to Wilson by an ex-official from Niger lent credibility (in the CIA's view) to the suspicion about Saddam's attempts to acquire yellowcake from Niger. (C)Long after the events, the independent Butler Commission in Britain looked at the intelligence passed to Bush, and on which he based his State of the Union statement, and found no reason to alter what Britain had told Bush or how Bush reported it.
(2)Wilson and his trip cannot be linked, as he has done, to "forged documents". (A)The "forged documents" do not enter the US intelligence stream until long after Wilson's trip and thus other intelligence, not the "forged documents" comprised the information leading to the question about Saddam and yellowcake from Niger. (B)And support, again from the independent Butler Commission confirms that.
My best guess is that people in the CIA, politically motivated rogues, and known to Plame and Wilson, manufactured the "forged documents" and using friends and associates in foreign intelligence services (French) put them into the intelligence stream themselves to damage Bush. The French had a ton of reasons, mostly self-serving, for not wanting us to get into Iraq (some of it Uranium related)