The Kay Report, Kerry & Hillary... who was duped, and when?

[bwsmom]

It's about time we set the record straight. The Kay Report is out, and the media and Dems are jumping all over it, using every derogatory word in the book to describe the "intelligence failure" of the Bush administration. But is it really? Kay himself is quoted as saying: "I don't think they existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the '90s." The 90's? Wait a minute... GWB wasn't in office in the 90's! That was the Clinton administration! But folks from that era are all saying the intelligence failure lies with the Bush administration. Let's take a look at what those detractors had to say, back in the 90's that Kay is referring to. Grab a bowl of popcorn and get set for some great reading as we yield the floor first to the Senator from Massachusetts, then to the Senator from New York....

First, John F. Kerry: For all of his posturing now about Saddam's "lack" of WMD's, he was singing a much different tune back in 1997, as evidenced by the Congressional record and the speech he gave on November 9th of that year. The text itself is far too long to post here, so I'll hit the highlights (which are plentiful enough - and do note the language that he used, bolded for easy reference). However, if you'd like to read the whole thing for yourself, go to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], select "1997 Congressional Record", type S12254 in the box and hit Submit. (This brings you to the exact page in the Congressional record where Kerry's speech is recorded.... note, it's a .cgi, readable by Adobe). Now, to the speech itself:

A very troubling situation has developed in the Middle East that has ominous implications, not just for our national security but literally for the security of all civilized and law-abiding areas of the world. *SNIP*

Now, during the past 2 weeks, Saddam again has raised his obstinately uncooperative profile. We all know of his announcement that he will no longer permit United States citizens to participate in the U.N. inspection team searching Iraq for violations of the U.N. requirement that Iraq not build or store weapons of mass destruction. And he has made good on his announcement. The UNSCOM inspection team, that is, the United Nations Special Commission team, has been refused access to its inspection targets throughout the week and once again today because it has Americans as team members. While it is not certain, it is not unreasonable to assume that Saddam’s action may have been precipitated by the fear that the U.N. inspectors were getting uncomfortably close to discovering some caches of reprehensible weapons of mass destruction, or facilities to manufacture them, that many have long feared he is doing everything in his power to build, hide, and hoard. *SNIP*

There is an inescapable reality that, after all of the effort of recent years, Saddam Hussein remains the international outlaw he was when he invaded Kuwait. For most of a decade he has set himself outside international law, and he has sought to avoid the efforts of the international community to insist that his nation comport itself with reasonable standards of behavior and, specifically, not equip itself with implements of mass destruction which it has shown the willingness to use in previous conflicts. *SNIP*

We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. *SNIP*

In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.

This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.

Of course, Mr. President, the greatest care must be taken to reduce collateral damage to the maximum extent possible, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein cynically and cold-heartedly has made that a difficult challenge by ringing most high-value military targets with civilians.

As the Security Council confronts this, I believe it is important for it to keep prominently in mind the main objective we all should have, which is maintaining an effective, thorough, competent inspection process that will locate and unveil any covert prohibited weapons activity underway in Iraq. *SNIP*

Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted — which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say moment does not seem to have even begun — the United States must not lose its resolve to take action. But I think there is strong reason to believe that the multilateral resolve will persist. *SNIP*

In a more practical vein, Mr. President, I submit that the old adage ‘‘pay now or pay later’’ applies perfectly in this situation. If Saddam Hussein is permitted to go about his effort to build weapons of mass destruction and to avoid the accountability of the United Nations, we will surely reap a confrontation of greater consequence in the future. *SNIP*

There can be little or no question that Saddam has no compunctions about using the most reprehensible weapons — on civilians as readily as on military forces. He has used poison gas against Iranian troops and civilians in the Iran-Iraq border conflict. He has launched Scud missiles against Israel and against coalition troops based in Saudi Arabia during the gulf war. *SNIP*

It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true. *SNIP*

Finally, we must consider the ultimate nightmare. Surely, if Saddam’s efforts are permitted to continue unabated, we will eventually face more aggression by Saddam, quite conceivably including an attack on Israel, or on other nations in the region as he seeks predominance within the Arab community. If he has such weapons, his attack is likely to employ weapons of unspeakable and indiscriminate destructiveness and torturous effects on civilians and military alike. What that would unleash is simply too horrendous to contemplate, but the United States inevitably would be drawn into that conflict. *SNIP*

As the world’s only current superpower, we have the enormous responsibility not to exhibit arrogance, not to take any unwitting or unnecessary risks, and not to employ armed force casually. But at the same time it is our responsibility not to shy away from those confrontations that really matter in the long run. And this matters in the long run. *SNIP*

While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.

On to part two for Hillary's take on the situation....

[bwsmom]

The Senator from New York, in a Senate Floor speech on October 10, 2002 (p. S10288 of the Congressional Record):

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program. *SNIP*

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. *SNIP*

As a condition for ending the conflict (Desert Storm), the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities. *SNIP*

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. *SNIP*

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. *SNIP*

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. *SNIP*

After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. *SNIP*

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them. *SNIP*

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. *SNIP*

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

These two speeches, five years apart, show that the "massive intelligence failure" didn't come at the hands of the Bush administration. The fact that Kay has reached back into the 90's speaks for itself... and it begs the questions: Would either Kerry or Hillary take back what they said in their speeches? Do they feel they were somehow "duped" or "misled" into believing Saddam had WMD's that have now disappeared into a pile of sand (and, if they do feel they were duped, by whom)? How is it that the intelligence that led them to so strongly believe in Saddam's weapons programs has changed so much that they can now stand and say that the intelligence failure was only on the part of the Bush administration? The Kay Report is indeed compelling... and convicting, but the blame does not lie solely with the Bush administration, and the Democrats would do wise to realize that and zip their lips before they, too, are accused of misleading the country...

[CagedTroll]

So they were wrong then. [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[bwsmom]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

So they were wrong then.

So then they should recuse themselves from saying anything about it now, or criticizing the Bush administration for acting on the same beliefs and intelligence....

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Not on this subject. They're all part of the same fruit basket....

[pandybat]

Whether they believed or didn't believe back then makes do difference if they weren't sure the had the correct intelligence information. All I can say is it's a good thing they didn't act on it when they had the chance or they'd be in the same position as Bush is right now.

[FUNdamental]

Originally Posted by pandybat

Whether they believed or didn't believe back then makes do difference if they weren't sure the had the correct intelligence information. All I can say is it's a good thing they didn't act on it when they had the chance or they'd be in the same position as Bush is right now.

Good point, I would like to add the following....


It appears whatever Saddam had attempted to do in the mid to late 90's was squashed by the air campaign of the period, literally, beating him into submission. While members of Congress were given the same information as the President, the President at the time used air attacks, not a full scale costly invasion, to ward off Iraq’s desired weapons build up.

Concerning this decade, since members of congress were given the same information as the administration, a question we could ask our Congressional elected officials could be “was the information you were given about current Iraqi weapons build up deliberately exaggerated, or even fabricated, by the current administration in order to justify what we now know was a war planned for in the first days of the Bush administration?”

[bwsmom]

Originally Posted by pandybat

Whether they believed or didn't believe back then makes do difference if they weren't sure the had the correct intelligence information. All I can say is it's a good thing they didn't act on it when they had the chance or they'd be in the same position as Bush is right now.

Ahhh.... but, Hillary's speech was given when the Congress was voting on what authority to give Bush (i.e., go to war, keep at the U.N., or...?). And, since she did vote for the resolution, you could reasonably say that she DID act on the information she had. And Kerry was urging the president to do something... not sit on the sidelines and allow Saddam to work unfettered at building up his "stash"...

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

It appears whatever Saddam had attempted to do in the mid to late 90's was squashed by the air campaign of the period, literally, beating him into submission. While members of Congress were given the same information as the President, the President at the time used air attacks, not a full scale costly invasion, to ward off Iraq’s desired weapons build up.

One problem with that theory... as you'll note in Hillary's speech, she says that after Desert Storm, the inspectors "found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities". But then, in 1998, "President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets. " (One four-day air assault does not equal "beating him into submission".) Either he rebuilt his stash, or had more of them in hiding.

As she continued in her speech, Hillary said: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program..... now this much is undisputed." For at least two of those four years she's referring to, it was still her hubby's intelligence gatherers, not GWB's. And she was acting on the information as a whole, not "breaking news" intelligence reports. Since she's a member of the current Congress, you'd have to ask her the same question you want to ask the rest of them. Wonder what she'd say.... oh yeah, that's right, she already said she was "misled" by the information she was given....funny how that works - hubby's information is completely accurate and 100% true, while the next president's information is "deliberately exaggerated, or even fabricated". What a joke! This ordeal with Saddam has been going on for 13 years (with 13 years' worth of intelligence to back it up), but when a president actually goes in and does something about it, people start whining about why.

Hillary said it best.... the information [as a whole] was "undisputed". If it was false, it certainly should have been disputed a long time ago... like, say, 1997, 1998, or even earlier. Her information comes from her husband's administration forward...and she stood by it. Face it, folks... there's a huge double-standard going on here... when their party ran the show, all information was somehow God-breathed and 100% accurate. Now that another party is calling the shots, the information can't possibly be true! You can't rely upon the Kay report without referring back to the Clinton era and the intelligence gathered therein, plain and simple.

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by bwsmom

Ahhh.... but, Hillary's speech was given when the Congress was voting on what authority to give Bush (i.e., go to war, keep at the U.N., or...?).

Actually, from the [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] :
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

<snip>

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

There's also something about how the administration was required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. That's down in Section 3, subsection (b).

[bwsmom]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

Actually, from the [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] :
[I]Whereas on September 12, 2002,....

Wrong resolution! From [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]: October 10, 2002 - Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

From your link: "S.J. RES. 45 To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." *SNIP*

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the first time

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security, stated the reasons for that conclusion, and urged the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, including the Kurdish peoples, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations;

Whereas the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify the use of force by the United States in order to defend itself;

Whereas Iraq is in material breach of its disarmament and other obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, to cease repression of its civilian population that threatens international peace and security under United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and to cease threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 949, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with these `subsequent relevant resolutions';

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States to achieve full implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 678;

Whereas Congress in section 1095 of Public Law 102-190 has stated that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688';

Whereas Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-33 has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Further Resolution on Iraq'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

[CagedTroll]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[bwsmom]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Well, I sure hope you contacted Hillary's webmaster to fix that mistake! Apparently, he/she sure thought Hillary was voting for SJ Res 45!!!

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by bwsmom

Well, I sure hope you contacted Hillary's webmaster to fix that mistake! Apparently, he/she sure thought Hillary was voting for SJ Res 45!!!

Yeah, and btw, interesting spot to *snip*...: "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

She was voting for 45, which didn't include limits on the authorization to use force. She made her concerns clear. 45 never came to a vote because she wasn't the only one who had these concerns.

[bwsmom]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

Yeah, and btw, interesting spot to *snip*...: "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

She was voting for 45, which didn't include limits on the authorization to use force. She made her concerns clear. 45 never came to a vote because she wasn't the only one who had these concerns.

Perhaps, but it's not the subject of this thread, is it? The subject of this thread is what intelligence was gleaned when, and which intelligence was correct and which wasn't. Since Kay himself said: "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the '90s," one has to wonder just what information/intelligence the Clintons and John F. Kerry were relying on in the '90's and how they now come to the conclusion that what they relied on then is so different from what GWB relied on pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom. This whole business about how only the information gleaned since GWB took office is somehow incorrect, distorted or fabricated is getting downright ridiculous... the same info has been out there for the past 13 years - do we need to post the opening text of UN Resolution 1441 again? It's time for everyone to buck up and realize that GWB isn't the only one whose information said that Saddam had (or has) WMD's...

[pandybat]

Originally Posted by bwsmom

Wait a minute... GWB wasn't in office in the 90's! That was the Clinton administration! But folks from that era are all saying the intelligence failure lies with the Bush administration.

Originally Posted by bwsmom

The Kay Report is indeed compelling... and convicting, but the blame does not lie solely with the Bush administration, and the Democrats would do wise to realize that and zip their lips before they, too, are accused of misleading the country...

It's time for everyone to buck up and realize that GWB isn't the only one whose information said that Saddam had (or has) WMD's...

But what makes Bush different was his willingness to boldly take action based on the wrong information, regardless of the long term consequences. He gives no fair consideration to other options.

[bwsmom]

Originally Posted by pandybat

But what makes Bush different was his willingness to boldly take action based on the wrong information, regardless of the long term consequences. He gives no fair consideration to other options.

Clinton did the exact same thing! Remember that suspiciously-timed bombing run in Afghanistan? The one that was launched the same day as Monica testified? Their intelligence information was *wrong* and they supposedly missed Osama "by a few hours"... and, of course, as the story goes, he wouldn't do another bombing run after that because he was "concerned" the intel might be wrong again!

I believe that GWB did give consideration to other options... then he looked at the fact that the U.N. and everybody else had been giving Saddam "other options" for 13 years and decided enough was enough. The whole scenario of the U.N. letting Saddam carry on for 13 years without consequence (yes, there were sanctions, but they only hurt his people, not him) reminds me of a drunk driver on his umpteenth conviction... still out there killing people, but it's okay... let's just give him this one more chance! As Hillary herself said: "Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed." GWB made sure he was disarmed once and for all.