It's all whose fault?

OK, so apparently we are going to do this. Now, it isn't President Bush and this United States Congress that took us to war...it's Bill Clinton's fault. Don't believe me? Well, it's true. Apparently this is the new way the Republicans and conservatives intend to respond to the questions about whether or not the Intel that led up to the invasion of Iraq was manipulated. I'm betting the Republicans are hoping the Democrats respond like they usually do when anyone brings up Clinton and the conversation leads to yet another in depth discussion of the former Presidents penis...

Over at Michelle Malkin, guest blogger Bryan Preston has posted this graphic:

and this link.

Or, you can visit USSNeverdock for his rationale on how this is Clinton's fault. It is a nice try, but no one is buying it and here is why:

1998 was 4 years before we invaded Iraq. If you want to blame Clinton for the Intel failures of 9/11 then how can you not say President Bush was responsible for the Intel failures that led us to Iraq?

4 years is a long time. Things change. Obviously, they did. After 9/11, instead of firing Tenet who missed everything on 9/11, President Bush kept him on. And you guys want to blame Bill Clinton for starting the War in Iraq.  I doubt we'd be having this conversation if everyone thought things were going well in Iraq. If the American people felt as though the President had a workable plan to win this war.

Bottom line, good or bad, win or lose--you own this.

Comments

[Pothus]

Hate to disagree with you, but.... All of those democrats that said Bush lied, most assuredly lied through their teeth as well. They read the same intel that the President had, even went on the record, MSM and agreed to go to war.. Oh, but wait, they were wrong in their assessment, and Bush lied. Can't argue with someone who would rather call Bush a liar than actually hear the truth, from your own representatives’ mouths. And Clinton had an opportunity, in between boffing Monica, to take out UBL, but got his penis caught in his zipper

[RayGun]

Pothus - you said it, brother! (or is it, "sister"?)

[Pothus]

RayGun, most assuredly a dude! lol And thanks. Guess I'm not the only one tired of the charades from our left-leaning representatives'. (And yes, some on the right don't have their heads on tight either).

[Lisa]

Guys... the Dems just can't stand the fact that their man sat on his ass and played with cigars and did nothing about the terrorism problem. But instead of acknowledging that, they do everything they can to bring down the man who comes in and takes a stand and actually takes action.

[Rita]

You know what they say about a man and his Penis? They always think it is the "big show" but we know it's just limp. :)

[Chris]

Your guy had two years to gather intel on Iraq and he relied on people who obviously dropped the ball when it came to 9/11. He chose loyalty over competence and we are paying for it now. I strongly suspect that next we'll have the Intel Community telling us the WMD's are in Russia or Syria or wherever--and my question will be the same one someone should have asked back when--HOW do we know that?

[SicSemperTyrannus]

For the sake of all humanity, please don't EVER AGAIN use "in Depth" and "Clinton's penis" in the same sentence.

[USMC Steve]

Chris,

First of all, those of us who were in it always considered intelligence collection a "black art" and not a science. The reason for that is that people look at clues and information and try to decide what is true and what is a lie, what is coincidence and what is not. Throw in the personalities involved in collecting, processing, and evaluating that intel, and the picture gets even more complex.

NOw I will say this: Neither Clinton nor Bush are entirely to blame for the quality or lack thereof, the intel they got. The agencies who produce it are. That is their job. Most of them do it well, but sometimes the tea leaves get read wrong. So it is a package deal. The intel comes in and the President of the time must then decide what to do based on it. The significant difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton DID NOTHING substantive to deal with the problems that Bush now has to deal with. (But no one could know at the time that Bubba's inaction would come back to bite this country in the ass.) Many of the professional intelligence types in the military and the CIA, DIA, etc. thought it would, but we are suspicious by nature.

Your logic is somewhat invalid. The professionals told Bush what they told him. He worked with what he had available. Based on past intel, Saddam had access to chemical and biological weapons, and had used them on numerous occasions. He actively obstructed weapons inspectors and behaved as did his people, as if he was hiding these weapons. Now, if you take into account the following items:
1. Saddam had viable WND's in the form of biological and chemical weapons;
2. Saddam had used these weapons on multiple occasions against Iran, and his own people;
3. That he had the ability to make more domestically and that the facilities could be moved around relatively easily;
4. That he actively instigated the interference with and obstruction of the UN weapons inspectors, which would logically lead one to conclude THAT HE HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE based on these actions;
5. His government's active support and assistance to at least three terrorist groups inside Iraq, and his very amiable relationship with Abu Abbas, who was later killed in Iraq when he became a liability to Saddam;
6. He had offered bounties on any dead American killed by muslims;

then is is reasonable and prudent to think he still had at least some chemical/biological capability. The possibility existed that he could and would use those weapons, or sell them to some terrorist groups who wanted to deploy them against the U.S. and given the bounties offered, he could reasonably be expected to assist any group attempting to kill Americans.

I have some inside knowledge of these matters, so I cannot go further into that, but I CAN tell you that military intelligence types were absolutely convinced that these possibilities existed, and that Saddam was a destabilizing influence in that region, and a clear and present danger to US interests and personnel. Given the in-depth personality appraisal available to the intelligence community, it was believed as fact that the only way to keep him from hitting at US interests and people was to take him out of the picture.

You believe what you want, but I am telling you how it was. Loyalty versus competence has nothing to do with it. I would have come to the same conclusions based on what I knew and the information above.

[Bombtruck]

So Chris, what you're saying is that no matter what democrats said of what they believed, it's all Bush's fault. It doesn't matter that the dems believed the intelligence, it doesn't matter for how long they believed it, or that they saw the same intelligence, or that they encouraged the policy of 'regime change' back when Clinton was President and had no problem with saying they supported regime chage. You want Americans to believe none of that matters at all, right?

Really, your post is as disingenuous as I've ever seen you write. What we're saying is the people throwing the stones, i.e. democrats, are doing so from glass houses. We can prove they're lying, they're rewriting history, but for some reason you want everyone to ignore that.

You're wrong, Chris. Stop being disengenuous.

[Shari]

Chris: I strongly suspect that next we'll have the Intel Community telling us the WMD's are in Russia or Syria or wherever

ME: Considering that Rocky went to Syria in 2002 and blabbed his freaking mouth, you just may have hit the nail on the head!!

[Chris Sears]

The Republicans would do better to use the words of HILLARY in their defense ( or "Offense", if they are FINALLY on that!) She has said more to specifically promote and justify the War in Iraq (and more recently) than her husband.
As for Bill, why do not the Republicans get some of their lower echelon to demand an "APOLOGY" (yes, I hate when they do that too, but this is what many Democrats are demanding from President Bush concerning Rove, Libby..) Shouldn't Bill "apologize" (since that is all the rage) to the American people for #1 reducing the intelligence force #2 deciding to let UBL go when offered him on a silver platter?

PS I am one of the "Crazys" who still believe their was WMD and it is in the B.Valley in Syria.

PSS Just got Dick Morris' book and he has STOLEN my "Jekyll & Hyde" comparison to Hillary! Mine was of the Broadway Musical and Frank Wildhorn connection. I guess his was not, but, I may be able to sue.
Stay on the Hillary Train of thought. It is where we all soon will be passengers!

[Pothus]

I found a great article from a soldier in Iraq who has done some homework. Hope I can add his url here for all to read.
http://americancitizensoldier.blogspot.com/2005/11/name-that-neocon.html

He really brings to light, all those Democrats who are now saying they were lied too by President Bush. Funny how something you say can come back and bite you on the @ss!
Michael

[Chris Sears]

That is why I kinda disagree (have to say "kinda" 'cause it's Col. Hunt - who - I love that guy, but disagree with) with the idea that Veterans Day was not the time to express the offense that the President did.
It was the PERFECT time. (Sorry, Col.Hunt)
The Democrats (The few like Kennedy etc.) use any old day of the 365 days in the year, to say things which the enemy can use to promote their cause. They are saying, on any day, what the military just hurts to hear. So, why not Veterans Day for the President to say to HIS military, as they are listening and looking up to their Comander in Chief, that - though they have heard the words of people who seem against them, those people are wrong (and here is how I show you they are wrong, and we the "Americans" see right through their wrongness and hypocrisy, and are WITH you guys.)
Why is Veterans Day not the day to do this with our guys?

[Rita]

OH, and if you want to talk about a penis, then talk about John Holmes. Now there was a Penis, not some shriveled up, in the water shinkage looking one like Willy, but one that had strength, and length....Ha...:)

[USMC Steve]

That is way more information than I needed Rita. But I must admit, I find it funny to put "in-depth" and Clinton's penis" in the same thought. Isn't that an oxymoron?

[Rita]

Ha, only too much information if someone has Penis envy. :)

The only thing Clinton has "in-depth" is the longing for a young women in a blue dress....

[Rita]

...and that's not his wife....:)