Interviews of Buchanan contained falsehoods about Clinton's '02 vote on war resolution
SUMMARY: In television appearances to promote her new book, Bay Buchanan claimed that Hillary Clinton said in a magazine article that she "didn't know" her vote in favor of the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq "was a vote for war." In fact, Clinton is not quoted as saying -- as Buchanan claimed -- that "I didn't know it was a vote for war," or "I didn't vote for war," and the article's context makes it clear that Clinton knew what the bill authorized.
In television appearances to promote her new book, The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton (Regnery, May 2007), Bay Buchanan, a Republican strategist and senior adviser to Republican presidential hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO), falsely claimed, referring to a November 2006 Atlantic Monthly article by senior editor Joshua Green on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), that Clinton said she "didn't know" her vote in favor of the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq "was a vote for war."
On the May 21 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Buchanan said: "For two and a half years, she was an outspoken supporter of this war. And then to be able to say to a reporter, Joshua Green, when asked about the vote, she said, 'I didn't know it was a vote for war.' I mean, she literally said this." On the May 17 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Buchanan said that Clinton "voted for that war for one reason, and it's real clear now: political expediency. And she defended that war for two and a half years. Then she comes out and says, 'I was misled. He lied to me, the president lied to me.' And she tells one reporter, 'I didn't even know it was war. I didn't vote for war.' That's after two years of defending the war."
Buchanan's assertions are false for at least two reasons. First, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the 2002 resolution that Clinton voted for was not "a vote for war," as Buchanan claims; it gave the president the authority to go to war.
Second, Clinton is not quoted in the Atlantic article "literally" saying -- as Buchanan claimed -- that "I didn't know it was a vote for war," or "I didn't vote for war." In the article, Green paraphrased, but did not provide verbatim, his question to Clinton: "Most people correctly foresaw the vote as authorization for Bush to invade Iraq. Did she really mean to suggest she had not been among them?" He then reported Clinton's purported response: " 'Well, I think that's right,' she said, affecting total ignorance." The passage is ambiguous; the reader does not know the exact question Clinton was answering or what she was referring to as "right." The rest of the passage from Green's article, however, makes clear that Clinton was not disputing the language or meaning of the bill; what she says she did not know was that President Bush would actually invade Iraq, rather than use the authority as leverage in the United Nations. From the article:
I asked whether Bush's decision to go to war was really something she didn't expect at the time. "Well, I've said that he 'misused' the authority granted to him," she replied. "When I spoke at the time of the vote I made it very clear that this was not a vote for preemptive war; this was a vote, I thought, that would enable diplomacy to succeed because we would have a unified front between the president and our Congress to go to the Security Council to try to get the inspectors back in. Obviously we now know, in retrospect, that the president and vice president and his team probably didn't intend for the inspectors to do their work."
Most people correctly foresaw the vote as authorization for Bush to invade Iraq. Did she really mean to suggest she had not been among them? "Well, I think that's right," she said, affecting total ignorance, and then launched into a point-by-point defense of the position. "That's what Bush said in his speech in Cincinnati on October 7th. They called me to the White House on October 8th and gave me another briefing. When I got back to my office, Condi Rice called me and asked if I had any questions. I said, 'Look, I have one question: If the president has this authority, will he go to the United Nations and use it to get inspectors to go back into Iraq and figure out what this guy has?' [Rice replied,] 'Yes, that's what it's for.' Privately and publicly, that was the argument they were making."
Later in the article, Green quoted Clinton describing the difference between her position on the resolution and that of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT): "It is indisputable that we both voted to give Bush authority. But what we thought we were voting for, and what Bush eventually did, and then how we have responded since, I think, is really distinctive between us."
Clinton's comments at and since the time of her vote indicate she knew what she was authorizing, but she has said she wrongly believed President Bush's intentions. Indeed, In an October 10, 2002, floor speech before her vote, Clinton acknowledged that approval of the resolution could "lead to war," but also said that she expected the White House to push for "complete, unlimited inspections" and that she did not view her support for the measure as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism." Clinton also stated her view that the resolution's passage would make "war less likely":
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our Nation.
Additionally, on Washington Journal, Buchanan falsely claimed that Clinton voted against cloture on Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) amendment to discontinue the use of funds after March 31, 2008, for "the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces." In fact, Clinton was one of 29 senators who voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on the Feingold amendment and thus end debate and bring the measure up for a vote.
From the May 21 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal:
BUCHANAN: Secondly, as you look at her voting record with respect to the war in Iraq, this is -- she's all over the lot. She claims, you know, initially she voted for it. She took two and a half years. She praised it. She supported it. She told the American people that we have to be patient, that this is in our national security interest. And then when it became unpopular, she starts to backtrack. Initially, she says, well, it was the smart thing to do, it was the right thing to do, but the president, he implemented it wrong, he fouled the whole thing up. And then after that, she said, "Well, I would never have voted for it. I didn't know it was for war. He misled me, lied to us." And that's just completely inaccurate because, indeed, she supported it for two years. As the war took place, she was still supporting it. She obviously knew it was war, and the country knew it was about the war, and the resolution, of course, being to place armed services in Iraq. Anyone who voted for that must assume that that may be the direction we go in. So this is a woman who will not stand up. She takes no responsibility for her actions. This is a repeated pattern through her life.
[...]
BUCHANAN: The other day, in the morning she decided to vote against cloture for the Iraq war funding. And by noon, she couldn't tell the press whether she was going to vote for it if it went to the floor or not. And she had to wait several hours. She had to get back to her experts, her consultants, her pollsters, to tell her what do we do next, what do we do next. This is not a woman that can deduce these things. She has to be told them.
[...]
BUCHANAN: These are all things she supported, and then for -- as I said, for two and a half years, she was an outspoken supporter of this war. And then to be able to say to a reporter, Joshua Green, when asked about the vote, she said, "I didn't know it was a vote for war." I mean, she literally said this. I did not believe -- and he said, "You mean you didn't think this was a war vote? You didn't think you'd go to war?" She said, "No I did not believe he was going to go to war if I voted for this."
From the May 17 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: Well, Bay Buchanan is here now. She has a brand new book out. It's entitled The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton, suggesting a little partisanship in its approach. How are you, Bay?
BUCHANAN: Hi, how are you doing?
DOBBS: Congratulations on the new book.
BUCHANAN: Thank you very much. It's not partisan. It's completely objective review of who Hillary is and where she wants to take this country.
DOBBS: And objectively, you say that Hillary Clinton is without question a big anti-war liberal.
BUCHANAN: Well, she's -- you know, on the -- on the war issue, I made it really clear. She voted for that war for one reason, and it's real clear now: political expediency. And she defended that war for two and a half years. Then she comes out and says, "I was misled. He lied to me, the president lied to me." And she tells one reporter, "I didn't even know it was war. I didn't vote for war." That's after two years of defending the war. I don't mind if you're for the war or against the war; there's arguments on both sides. But let's have some courage and be a stand-up person when you vote to send people, young people over to die and possibly put their life on the line there.
Anyone who would view this book as anything other than a partisan hit piece is delusional, who is Bay Buchanan trying to fool stating otherwise?
And can you possibly find a more hideous picture of this woman? I am scared of her!
.. I know this is bad, but she looks like she's been on an all night crack binge
Well, there goes Bay Buchanan, again calling George W. Bush a liar.
During the lead up to the vote on the resolution, he repeatedly stated that a vote for the resolution was "not a vote for war".
I remember FoxNews, Mitch McConnell, Wolf Blitzer, et al saying the same.
Nice catch!
In my view, it's very weak to vote for the authorization to go to war, and then later claim that you didn't think the authorization would be used. Had the war gone well, we wouldn't be hearing about any backpedaling on her part or anyone elses.
You voted it, you own it. Good or bad.
I have no problem with Clinton, or any politician, to say they messed up or they wish they would have cast their vote differently in hindsight.......but to parse words and squirm out of taking responsibility for that vote is a politician who deserves little respect.
I reluctantly must agree. Clinton could have put this issue behind her months ago by doing exactly what you suggest. As it is, she's given the Propaganda Parrots a stick with which to beat her.
The way I see it is that she doesn't really feel like Edwards does, that the vote was a mistake. I think she relishes the prospect of being able to prove her toughness as President.
This is the main reason why I have an enormous problem with Hillary. Not because she shimmies, side-steps, and talks out both sides of her mouth - show me one politician that doesn't do that.
My problem is that I think Hillary just really wants to kick the ragheads around.
on the other hand, bush lied when he said he would try to avoid going to war. he said he needed the authorization to go to the u.n. and get inspections restarted. that happened and he still invaded.
Lesson learned: Never ever believe anything that comes out of a Republican's lying mouth.
Without the backing of the Congressional Resolution, Saddam wouldn't have allowed the UN Weapons Inspectors back in.
Bush ignored what the weapons inspectors told him and invaded Iraq anyway.
I don't understand why everyone misses that point.
Without the backing of the Congressional Resolution, Saddam wouldn't have allowed the UN Weapons Inspectors back in.
That's not true. Some time before that became law on October 16, 2002, indeed well before it was introduced, Iraq had offered to readmit the inspectors. A date for their return had even been arranged, but it never happened.
Why? Colin Powell told the House International Relations Committee on September 20, a month before the resolution passed, that the United States would find ways to stop weapons inspectors from going back to Iraq unless the Security Council first adopted a new US-pushed resolution, one specifically designed to make it harder for Iraq to comply and which would provide a pretext for unilateral US military action - and which the US openly expected Iraq to reject. In other words, we didn't want there to be inspections.
Much to our surprise, Iraq accepted a slightly-modified version of that resolution and inspections resumed on November 27, 2002.
Was Saddam feeling the international pressure? Certainly. But the idea that it was the resolution that clinched it or even was a major cause of it just won't fly.
I understand both what you and she are saying.
However, I also happen to be in the minority among most who post on this site inasmuch as I supported the invasion... at the time. The reason is that I swallowed too many of the falsehoods the Administration was making about Saddam's capabilities. I fell for the Colin Powell UN speech, and I'll tell you why: I chose at the time to believe the intelligence we said we had. I did not want to believe much of it was contrived by the Cheney/Rumsfeld juggernaut.
Can one vote for that resolution and not believe, based on what the Administration was saying prior to the invasion, that we would not go to war? No. However, the I also believe... as did Hillary... that the resolution was needed for Saddam to let the weapons inspectors in.
Nevertheless, I also believe the President would have used his commander-in-chief powers and put us in Iraq anyway... with or without that Congressional vote.
Where I was wrong is the same place Lieberman is wrong... the failure to allow the inspectors to do the job they were dispatched by the UN to do was a colossal mistake. We made a colossal mistake of choosing to believe the Administration's sell job.
I think this is what Hillary is trying to say... but it's ambiguous.
Meanwhile, people like Bay Buchanan and other kooky-cons rejoice at what's happening in Iraq and continue to believe they have a winning strategy. But Harry Reid told the truth... "as long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost." What they can't get through their thick heads is the virtually unilateral approach to dealing with Iraq's civil war will fail. The only chance to ending it is strong diplomacy with entities in the region, including nations this Administration is too fat-headed to speak to.
Wow she is hateful.
Yes, she is. Can you imagine her, Mary Matalin and Ann Coulter all in the same room? Gaaaaack!
"Yes, she is. Can you imagine her, Mary Matalin and Ann Coulter all in the same room? Gaaaaack!" - nerzog
Ahh, technically that can never happen. Or more correctly let me state that should that event ever happen, time and space would implode creating a vortex of pure evil that would destroy all of reality.
Off topic limerick of Bay, Mary and Ann:
There once was a trio of broads
Whose stunning lies staggered the odds
Of learning the truth
Or there being much couth
Passive media, in concert, nod
Only if the room is a 6x8 cell in Gitmo. Otherwise, ew.
It would seem a fair enough question, to ask this person up-front, during any 'interview':
"Are the things you are about to say, are you saying them in your capacity as a senior adviser to a Republican presidential candidate, yes or no?"
It seems a fair enough question to ask... I mean, if all this noise about the Senator from New York is just campaign noise (and isn't that what Mr. Tancredo's senior advisers do, make campaign noise?)...
It seems fair enough to have that up-front: That what you're about to hear is just more campaign noise, from a senior adviser to a Republican presidential candidate.
Tell us up-front please, so we can change the channel and find something better to stare at.
This whole “vote to authorize” versus “vote for war” spat really perplexes me.
While both sides go back and forth over what was actually voted for, what was ‘secretly’ agreed upon and what actually happened, I’m still sitting here asking myself the questions:
Why would any Senator who does not favor pre-emptive war, in their right mind, want to grant ANY degree of “authorization” to a Republican oil crony who is the son of a President who was personally threatened by Saddam Hussein and had also ordered a previous invasion of the same country?
Did any Democratic congress member seriously believe that Bush would exercise any restraint given his political affiliation, his ties to big oil, and his father’s legacy???
In my opinion, the Dems who voted for this authorization can try to explain it away all they want. The bottom line is they let us down by not taking a stand, as symbolic as it may have been, against this train wreck of a Presidency, instead of giving Bush all the more motivation to divert attention and resources from al Qaeda so he can wage his bloody oil war.
I think the bottom line is that only a handful of Democrats had the courage to vote against this war. In defense of the others, I'm sure that it was difficult not to cower before the hyper-jingoism that infected the country after 9/11. There were probably some Republicans who knew it was a stupid idea, too, but dared not defy Emperor Cheney and his sock-puppet W.
What I fear is that we're headed down the same road with Iran.
Just so that we're clear on this one, here are the voting records:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
Thanks for the link. If I weren't so lazy, I could have looked that up. Obviously, more than a handful of Democrats voted agains this madness. It's interesting to note that, in the House, more Democrats voted against it than for it. Our Right Wing Parrot friends don't like to mention that fact, do they?
...and it makes me so proud that my two Senators were in the nay column. Maybe a many of my fellow state citizens e-mailed them as well as to our preference for a negative vote on this. When I feel really strongly about an issue I email my Senators and Reps. I don't know if that works or not, but it makes me feel better.
I admit to being on both sides on this one.
On the one hand, Green's reference to Clinton as "affecting total ignorance," when he immediately thereafter cites her quoting chapter and verse in support of her argument, is grossly unfair. And Buchanan's twisting of the twisting is worse.
On the other hand, I do think that some Democrats - Clinton and Kerry among them - with their eyes on 2004 and beyond - voted as they did out of political cowardice, afraid that a vote against what they feared would be a popular war would hurt their chances.
I also agree that no one can give another the authority to undertake certain actions and then properly claim no responsibility when that person acts on the authority given.
58% of Congressional Democrats voted against the Iraq War. This is more than a handful! By the way, 97% of Republicans in Congress voted for the war.
A handful of democrats and Republican John J. "Jimmy" Duncan, Jr., 2d District from Tennessee, who still opposes the conflict and was one of the first ones on board in trying to stop it via the budget.
"DOBBS: Well, Bay Buchanan is here now. She has a brand new book out. It's entitled The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton, suggesting a little partisanship in its approach."
He also mentioned that she works for Republican Tancredo before the commercial break that preceded the interview.
So Dobbs stated who she worked for and suggested her book is partisan. I think that is warning enough.
As for Hillary or any other who voted for the use of force, once inaccurate intelligence was doled out by the Bush Ad. as accurate evidence of clear and present danger, only those who suspected our intelligence service could be bullied into keeping silent would have been suspicious enough to vote against it I am guessing.
There were plenty of folks who did vote against it.
This whole Congress was duped by a lying Bush defense is just silly. Like it or not, the main rationale for invading Iraq were because we thought they had WMD's, not a good thing in a post 9/11 world. Bill Clinton thought it, Tony Blair thought it, many thought it......they all were wrong, the intelligence was wrong and it failed us.
The Congresspersons who voted for the authorization to go to war did so based on that intelligence - they all were wrong.
But, did they see the raw intelligence? We now know that the intelligence was cherry-picked, and that caveats were conveniently ignored. The evidence is pretty hard to ignore by now...the Bush administration lied. Maybe Congress was too willing to believe them, but they did lie, nonetheless.
Why did Tony Blair take his country to war based on another's lies? He wasn't even cozy with Bush then, he was Clinton's guy. Why would he do that?
It's all moot at this point anyway, we're there and we need to deal with it the best way for our country, regardless.
what is your basis for claiming he was clinton's guy? he didn't make a move unless clinton said so? and doesn't the downing street memo disprove what you're saying?
If there is such cut and dried evidence that Bush lied our country into war, then why isn't Congress, now in the control of Democrats, beginning impeachment proceedings?
because they probably would not get anywhere. and you keep talking about everyone thinking saddam had wmd. we had the inspectors in there and they were finding nothing. i know a lot of you want to ignore that, but it's a fact.
They were also supposed to verify what had supposedly been destroyed according to the Iraqi government and they couldn't do that either.
but the fact is that they were going to the sites that we told them had weapons, and they were not finding them. it was bush that caused the inspectors to be removed.
I agree Bush pulled the inspectors. But along with that, the Iraq government was supposed to provide documentation for the (supposedly) destroyed unaccounted for weapons to be verified by the inspectors and the Iraq government did not or could not provide that documentation, prior to the inspectors being pulled.
I believe that was how Bush was able to claim that Iraq was in violation of 1441.
they did. they provided thousands of pages and we dismissed them immediately as insuffecient. bush wanted to invade. period.
I remember that. Rush Limbaugh carried on about the big "document dump" from Iraq, and how meaningless it was.
Bush lied.
insufficient
From Wik: Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."
At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions...
So I think the 12000 pages of "documentation" that Iraq submitted didn't say too much.
your link doesn't go anywhere. and blix did not want us to invade. he wanted his inspectors to keep doing their job. bush didn't.
I agree that Blix didn't want us to invade but he also admitted that the 12,000 pages of documentation provided by Iraq was B.S.
Bush saw his opportunity and he took it.
Sure, Saddam was dicking around. Absolutely true.
I just don't see that as justification for invading a country, destroying its infrastructure, touching off a civil war and ethnic cleansing, killing thousands of American soldiers, wounding tens of thousands, andpsychologically scarring hundreds of thousands.
But I'm a peacenik libtard, so who cares.
Well, when you put it that way....
I get a little irritated when all I read around here is America 100% at fault, Iraq 0% when I think it should be closer to 50-50. I'm just trying to provide a little balance for the hanging jury.
Bush is the one who decided to invade Iraq even though there was no urgent need to do so. Everything that has occurred is 100 percent his fault.
i didn't trust saddam at all. the question is did we need to invade, especially given that what folllowed was totally predictable.
"bush saw his opportunity and he took it." sure, that's what i said. he had no intention of allowing the inspectors to do their job. he wanted a war, and any flimsy excuse would do.
Blix ... admitted that the ... documentation provided by Iraq was B.S.
No, he didn't. He said it was incomplete, which is hardly the same thing. He later said he accepted that it was a record-keeping issue because even if Iraq couldn't produce documentation of some weapons having been destroyed, the fact was the actual weapons were nowhere to be found.
Just as a sidebar: At the time, I speculated that maybe some records of weapons having been destroyed had themselves been destroyed because, having ended his weapons programs, Saddam wanted to conceal evidence of just how extensive those programs had been. Later on, we learned from some Iraqi scientists who had been doing weapons-related work that after the end of the programs after the first Gulf War, an order had been issued to destroy all evidence that the programs ever existed. The order was later rescinded - which, closely in line with my speculation, could account for some such records having gone missing while others survived.
Are you suggesting that a "clerical error" or "clerical omission" is a legitimate excuse for invasion?
How many people have died so far for missing paperwork? I've worked for some real paperwork loons, but none ever threatened violence for shoddy records.
WARNING: This content may contain sarcasm.
There was a great deal of evidence that Saddam had no WMDs before the war. This idea that "everybody thought so" was bunk. The people in a position to know, the international inspectors, all said then and are saying now that he had disarmed. It was just the people looking for a justification to topple Saddam who said otherwise.
Actually, not just them: also those who went along with them because of fear that a "no" vote would be used against them - those who put career before the lives of their countrymen (and countless Iraqis).
The comment filter does not permit me to adequately express my regard for that latter group.
"also those who went along with them because of fear that a "no" vote would be used against them - those who put career before the lives of their countrymen (and countless Iraqis)." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I think that accounts for a substantial portion of those affirmative votes. It was politics pure and simple. I also understand or at least I've heard that the data that the administration used were dubious as interpreted by sober, sane, and non-partisan accounts, but that the majority of legislators didn't even make time to read that entire suspect report. They acted on an abstract or executive summary of the report. In Woodard’s book the WMD investigator whose name escapes me now assigned by George Tenet was amazed at the data that was used to make the WMD claim. I believe he called it pathetic and this was a guy who said he always held the belief that Sadam Hussein was not complying with the resolutions and had probably reconstituted his WMD program. After reading the data available he said it was no way that a seasoned professional in his field could conclude anything from the data and that there was no reliable evidence that supported the claim. The Bushies were grabbing at straws to justify something they’ve longed wanted to do, depose Sadam and test there contagious democracy hypothesis and the legislators were negligent and consequently complicit in this BS as far as I’m concerned.
I wouldn't characterize it as a "cut and dried" or "slam dunk" case that the Bush Administration lied. I do think there is plenty of evidence and a number of credible witnesses who would say so. There is no "smoking gun" as far as I know, such as a tape of Cheney telling Colin Powell to lie. There is, however, enough to justify hearings. The reason we aren't doing it now is because the Democrats simply don't have the political will.
I would say it WAS cut and dried that they lied. I would say when Bush made up an IAEA report claiming it said the exact opposite of their actual position that is a lie. I would say that them continuing to claim the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used as gas centrifuges more than a YEAR after our own scientists said it was unlikely and much more likely they were for rocket bodies constitutes a LIE. I would say the evidence in the public record is enough to demostrate conclusively that they LIED at least in a few specific instances.
Tommy, watch "The Dark Side" on Frontline.com for the EVIDENCE!
Blair could have been lied to, as well. We know that the Intelligence services depend on each other for information, and that sometimes verification was a circular process.
How we got there is not a moot point. If Bush and Cheney lied us into a war, they deserve to at least be impeached, if not criminally prosecuted.
You are right, then why is impeachment off the table? When many people used to say, prior to last November's elections, that it was because the Republicans controlled everything?
Why are the Democrats not pushing for removing a President who lied us into war?
so you don't think he lied?
I have never seen definitive evidence that he intentionally lied, nor do I know for certain he did not.
The point is why are the Democrats not pursuing impeachment proceedings if the evidence that he lied is irrefutable?
you know very well why. because the republicans will go into "here we are in the middle of a war and the democrats are playing into the hands of al-qaeda and the terrorists, and they are undermining the security of this country....", and a large part of thecountry will buy into it. that's why. don't forget you drank the kool-aid on this fiasco for quite awhile.
Bush was saying that the inspectors were not allowed into Iraq when we could clearly see them on our tv sets. Do I beleive him or my own lying eyes. I'll take my eyes. Also there was good intel and discredited intel available. The Bushies chose the bad intel and fixed the policies around that bad intel and proceeded to blame the intelligence services. That's why a whole bunch of career CIA people quit. If you aren't convinced that Bush lied, you need to do some more due diligence. Unbeleivable.
So Bill Clinton is also lying here? Which intelligence was he privvy too, the good or the bad?
Bill Clinton on Larry King Live - July, 22 2003 - "It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there"
Yes, Clinton is lying. He "never got to go back" because he pulled the inspectors prior to Desert Fox.
Larry Elder got his date wrong. Bob Dole was on Larry King live July, 22 2003. If you can find the actual date, I'd like to see what else Clinton had to say.
Look at CNN.com transcripts from July 22, 2003, Larry King Live - it was a show about Bob Dole's 80th birthday with Clinton as a guest.
The quote is accurate, as is the date.
Never mind...my bad. Clinton's remarks were made over the phone. In any case, it's interesting that the overall discussion was about the "16 words" controversy, and Clinton was half-heartedly defending Bush. Saying that a president can't personally check everything. The key factor is that he said, "the day I left office", which was 3 years before.
all a mute point, tommy. the inspectors were in iraq in 2003. you want to avoid that point, but you can't get around it.
moot
We are talking about Bush. But nice try in the art of trying to switch to Clinton.
No switch, if Bush lied, then Clinton lied......despite your refusal to admit that reality. Perhaps due diligence would serve you better.
Of course, there is the possibility that both lied, or both were duped. (Interesting that Republicans characterize Clinton as a serial liar, except on this one issue) It is quite possible the Bush was just saying what Cheney told him to say, and that he believed every word of it.
Clinton used the WMD issue to keep the sanctions lid on Saddam because it suited him to keep Iraq abject and beaten. To him, as to Albright, the deaths of children were "worth it" for him to achieve his geopolitical ends.
Bush's crimes do not excuse Clinton's, but the many deaths Clinton caused do not excuse Bush for causing many, many more deaths.
Agreed. This "Yeah, but Clinton..." defense has become a convenient smokescreen for the Bush apologists. The truth is, Clinton may have believed the weapons were there, or been unsure of their status, but he DID NOT consider Hussein a big enough threat to justify invasion. Plus, you have to take into consideration what was learned in the years between Clinton's term and the actual invasion. Apparently, Wolfowitz had floated his hairbrained idea of creating a Democratic/Capitalist Utopia in Iraq back during the 90s. Here is an interesting David Corn article on this topic:
[link to www.thenation.com]
bush has said that we had to invade because saddam would not let the inspectors in. that's a lie.
The truth is the inspectors were only allowed by Saddam in specific sites, in clear violation.
That is not the truth:
Hans Blix, 27 Jan 2003.
Frick.
"The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect"
-ibid
Among many, Iraq was in clear violation of UN Resolution 1441 - which authorized the invasion.
changing the subject again? after an initial period of resistance, the inspectors were going everywhere they wanted.
and the invasion was not authorized by the united nations. you're as truthful as bush.
ANOTHER OUTRIGHT LIE. There is NO WAY to say 1441 authorized any invasion. That is pure BS. 1441 said the UN SECURITY COUNSEL would remain siezed of the issue. NO language in 1441 authorized military action it said only serious consequences the language the UN uses to authorize force like they did in 91 is BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY. So no way did 1441 authorize any invasion NO WAY.
NO that is an outright lie. The TRUTH is that sensative sites had a certain protocol. Inspectors could STILL get access to those sites 4 at a time IF they found anything then all the inspectors would then gain access. At THAT time only the presidential palaces were off limits. THAT was in 98 now in 2003 they SAID they went everywhere they wanted with no hindrence. THAT included presidential palaces. Rightwing mantras do NOT create truth from fiction.
Perhaps not distracting from the central theme would serve you better. It isn't working. There were inspectors on the ground in 2003. Bush wanted a war and he got it by lying. Clinton did not start a war based on what he might not have known for sure.
YOU are the one that refuses to accept reality. Broad statements of belief are one thing. Saying the WMDs were unaccounted for is such a statement SPECIFIC LIES like I have DOCUMENTED that Bush told are a completely DIFFERENT kettle of fish.
What Clinton did or didnt say is completely irrelevant to the clear fact that Bush DID lie.
Yes you have I have answered this and given you irrefutable evidence at least half a dozen times. For ideological reasons you just refuse to accept the reality of the situation there is NO WAY that making up an IAEA report and claiming its position was the polar opposite of the IAEAs actual position was NOT a lie. There is no way that continuing to say the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for Gas Centrifuges a YEAR after our scientists refuted this unanimously is not a lie. NO WAY. You can keep stubbornly refusing to accept the clear reality here but its ludicrous to say you have never seen conclusive evidence you have, its just that none are so blind as those who REFUSE to see.
Partly because they have a bad taste in their mouths from the Clinton thing, partly because they don't think they could get a conviction, and partly because they're a bunch of pussies.
IMHO.
Tommy,
Have you read Bob Woodard's book? If not you should. If the Bushies didn't intentionally lie as you say, they were grossly negligent criminally so if you ask me for relying on the intelligence that they had. Impartial WMD and intelligence experts say the intellegence they they used could not have supported an affirmitive argument in a high school debate let alone justify a life and death matter like war waging. If this is true and there is mounting evidence by multiple reliable sources that this is the case our government including the nit-wit legislators that voted for the authorization let us down.
I dont agree they should be. There are however political considerations involved they COULD have impeached Reagan, we had a swimmingpool of evidence Raygun broke the law including HIS signiture on a document authorizing a program in clear violation of the Boland amendment. Yet he WASNT impeached. I think after the joke of the Clinton impeachment hearings the Dems are worried that it could too easily be spun that the impeachment hearings were a partisan witch hunt. What ever the reason it is NOT evidence that Bush didnt lie.
Blair had his own reasons for going to war: to maintain the "special relationship" with America, to enhance British influence in the region, to look tough domestically, etc.
I disagree that it's "moot." It is very relevant to discuss how we got to this point, especially with a secret war on Iran already well underway.
The question of what to do next in Iraq is a separate discussion, which I feel confident a nation of 300 million, with 535 legislators, can quite capably handle in parallel with this one.
Val,
I have had a dickens of a time trying to make sense out of Blair’s participation in this. Does he truly believe in GW’s contagious democracy theory or did Blair assuming that America could with minimal effort win a war against a third-fourth tier country like Iraq want to be on the side (remember GW said you’re either with us or with the terrorist) of the super winning super power and maintain a certain world relevance and perks for Britain. I always liked Blair and found him exceedingly articulate and smart. Nevertheless, Georgie and Tony will be forever married in history as Iraq is their band of gold; but I think depending on who the next elected leaders of America and Britain are that both countries can do some reputation repair. I hope the taint is limited to the people that started this, at least I hope so.Eh? Speak up, I cain't hear ye!
This comment editor is the worst, except for all the other comment editors...
But Bush got additional info from the inspectors in late 2002 and 2003 that disproved the intelligence.
Bush invaded based upon disproven intelligence.
Why do you continually harp on the flawed intelligence when those flaws were uncovered by the weapons inspectors?
the main rationale for invading Iraq were because we thought they had WMD's
Was it? I just want to be sure because "the main rationale" seems to shift with both time and topic. I'd be happy to see the right settle on one.
Bill Clinton thought it, Tony Blair thought it, many thought it
Interestingly, in his book State of War, James Risen says that in the last years of the Clinton administration, "Iraq was falling off the White House priority list." Whatever may or may not have been believed at the time about Iraqi WMDs, it apparently was not seen as that much of a threat. And I don't recall now if it was via Paul O'Neill or Richard Clarke that we learned that the Clinton transition team told Bush's people that they would probably spend more time on al-Qaeda than any other national security issue - advice the Bushites ignored.
But what really important here is that it doesn't matter what Clinton or Blair or anyone else may have previously believed. Not one little tiny bit. That's just a talking point evasion with no more weight than gossamer. It doesn't even matter what the Shrub team originally believed.
What matters is what was learned between November 2002 and March 2003, that is, from renewed inspections - and what was learned is that the WMDs weren't there. They were so not there, that UN inspectors were labeling the US's supposed "best intelligence" as "garbage" and worse.
The simple fact is, before the war started it was irrefutably clear that "the main rationale" was thoroughly bogus.
But that didn't matter because something else we learned later is that the Bushites were focused on Iraq "from day one," so much so that in the wake of 9/11 one of the first things they did was pressure intelligence agencies to find some way to connect it to Saddam Hussein.
In this debate, what Clinton's people may or may not have thought counts for exactly squat. Please don't waste time with it again.
The yellow cake uranium claim was already know to be inaccurate.
The shipment of metal rods that the Bush Ad. stated were designed for nuclear use and were known to be impossible to used in nuclear processes was a flat out lie.
There is nothing silly about betrayal.
If you see the documentary "Buying the War", you are left with two possible conclusions. Either all the people interviewed in the documentary are liars, or Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and Rumsfeld are liars. The choice seems clear, to me. This administration has been caught lying on other topics, why is it so hard to believe they lied about this?
I like the way Edwards handled it. To me his response was how much of the U.S. citizenry feels, that they should have tried harder somehow not to be deceived. I think many Republicans identify with that feeling today in connection with all things Bush.
I wasn't in Congress, and I wasn't duped, Tommy...there was sufficient information available, even without the silly "I've got sceret data" position used by the pompous and smug "insiders". The intelligence was never wrong, just the liars manipulating information. The fever pitch to engage in war, the bloodthirsty attitude of phony patriots, merely interested in profiting from death and destruction, that is the cause for this illegal invasion and occupation. And in an environment with an artifice of fear endlessly pounded on in the corporate owned media, you get shameful actions from those even more fearful of being wrong on such an inflamed issue. So, I lay it at the doorstep of all who cared more about their careers than their country, but I blame it on the Republican thugs occupying the White House and, for far too long, the Republican in Congress. Should many have acted otherwise? Yes, and many did, we just needed more brave souls in Congress at the launching of this debacle.
I think one reason the Democrats aren't impeaching Bush is a political calculation. They know that once they start it, it's likely to drag on well into the 08 election cycle. I think they fear a possible upsurge in sympathy for Puddinhead George that could hurt their chances at taking the White House. Remember how high Clinton's approval rating was during his impeachment?
Pathological liar much?
Why do we have so many Democrat Congressmen and Senators with the case of brain farts? The people we elect to run our government suppose to represent some of the smartest people in our society but yet the same democrats that voted for the Iraq war resolution now claim they were tricked or fooled or did not understand what they were voting for. Wow that is really bright. Face it the truth is these people go with the wind and have no conviction period. They are not that stupid, when it was time to vote for the Iraq war resolution the wind said vote for the war resolution now the wind has changed direction and they are jumping ship and will use any excuse for justification to change there direction with the wind. It does not matter what the Democrat politician say because if the wind changes direction again they will change too. What a bunch of losers, why don’t they just stamp there slogan on there forehead that reads “I voted for it before I voted against it”.
What you have said is correct, but it is equally correct of every Republican legislator who is now whining about the war they bought and paid for.
I don't have a lot more respect for those who still support "their President" in this illegal, immoral, foolish war, now that all the facts have been revealed.
So, did you copy and paste that from Rush Limbaugh's website? Rush even tried to float the idea that if the Democrats were so easily fooled by Bush, how could we trust them not to be fooled by the Terrorists? Only Pigboy could come up with convoluted logic like that and puke it up with a straight face.
Who is Rush Limbaugh?
There is no such thing as a Democrat Congressman, there are DemocratIC congressmen and ReNAMBLAcan congressmen
The only email I could find for Bay Buchanan
is at Tancredo's
teamamericapac@gmail.com
C-Span is
blamb@c-span.org
booktv@c-span.org
This is outrageous. Everyone knows that Hillary's vote was a vote both for and against the war. To say that she was merely "for" or "against" the war ignores her complex ability to take both sides of the issue depending on what her people tell her she should do.
I saw most of this interview on C-Span. I thought how odd it was that it was only mentioned at the end of the interview that she was managing Tancredo's campaign and all she did was talk about Hilary. What a missed opportunity for her candidate.
Clinton is about to vote for full war funding again this week. You can watch here as Media Matters tries to spin it as an antiwar vote. This site is basically a front for the Clinton campaign.
Reality check. Are we to suspend reality about Senator Clintons remarks about not realizing that a vote for the authorization for a use of force was a vote for war or potential war? Then I am sorry but her lack of any common sense makes her woefuly inadequate to hold the position of POTUS. That is like saying I didnt know that squeezing the trigger would set the gun off. Ms. Buchanan just pointed out the obvious disconnect with reality Senator Clinton is clearly exhibiting to any rational adult.