Quote:

whomod said:
It's obvious where Clinton was getting his mis-information about Iraq... just two weeks before Clinton verbally attacked Iraq, he had been given a long letter signed by the following PNAC "experts" on Iraq: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz,



Or maybe his information came from his cabinent, including his good friend, and former "director for strategic plans and policy of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" General Wesley Clark.

Check out the transcript of Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 26, 2002, 15 days before Congress voted to authorize the liberation of Iraq. Some highlights:

  • [Saddam Hussein] is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. . . .

  • Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. . . . At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

  • In addition, Saddam Hussein's current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

  • Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.


Although Clark did say force should be a "last resort" and U.N. support was desirable, he also urged Congress to "adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not."

(This is, of course. completely at odds with what he's been saying since he became a candidate for the presidency.}

Furthermore, even without factoring Clark, the idea that Bill Clinton was forming his foreign policy views based on unsolicited letters from groups of Republicans is probably one of the silliest, most tortured, attempts you've ever made to blame every ill of the world on Republicans.

Why would Clinton, why would any president , ignore the advice of his Secretary of State, his CIA director, his National Security advisor, etc., and based major policy viewpoints on letters he got from people with whom he disagreed on almost everything else.

The simple fact of the matter is that pretty much everyone in both parties, in both houses of Congress, viewed Saddam as threat. The fact that some are now backpedling on that is evidence of nothing so much as their own cynical political opportunism.