Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to not true

Evidence is obvious that intelligence situation preceded Bush

On intelligence, and the conclusions drawn by politicians:

Despite our swift victory and our efforts since, there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein still seeks to amass weapons of mass destruction. You know as well as I do that as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the people of the Middle East. We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone.

We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power. I have met with the Iraqi opposition and I have invited them to meet with me again next month, when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam.

We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism, while improving the oil-for-food program to help the Iraqi people directly. We have used force when necessary, and that has been frequently. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a senator, I voted for the use of force, as vice president I supported the use of force. If entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waiver. Never waiver.

- Al Gore, May 22, 2000


There's also a nice list of statements here:

If you want to realistically address the action taken by Bush upon receipt of this intelligence, an invasion to once and for all prevent Saddam from acquiring and/or disbursing these weapons, fine. The Clinton administration, given the same data, assumed sanctions would do the job, maybe a few choice sites being bombed, no-fly zones for the next forty years, and the hope that the U.N. could finally get some cooperation from Iraq, and wouldn't screw the pooch like it did before the Gulf War. He wasn't impressing Saddam, and obviously didn't impress al Qaeda either.

Two presidents made two different decisions to address an identical perceived problem.

I suppose that's a point that can still be reasonably argued, although it was obvious sanctions were useless, except to kill far more Iraqis than the invasion ever did, and it has been found that much was being hidden from U.N. inspectors, which in later months were being grudgingly accommodated only because a huge chunk of America's military was parked offshore.

But you have to drop the "Bush cooked the intelligence" or "Bush lied" bit. It isn't holding any water any more.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (38 posts)