The Secretary of Defense in response to the former Secretary of Treasury's book
 

...as it pertains to the President having planned the invasion of Iraq pre 9/11.

The Secretary of Defense stated today at his press briefing that the official US policy for Iraq has been regime change since 1998.

As everyone is aware...the current President...chose to act upon that policy. Unless President Clinton denies that the official US policy for Iraq has been regime change since 1998...the "expose" by the former Secretary of the Treasury...is not an "expose" and is instead...simply official US policy being applied. Policy that was created by President Clinton and the Congress serving during his administration.

I don't recall Clinton launching a war against Saddam.

Your recollection is technically correct...but President Clinton did attack Iraq and of course gave permission to our pilots flying in the Northern and Southern no fly zones to take out targets when fired upon...which happened virtually every week...if not every day. According to the Secretary of Defense he made official...US policy for regime change in Iraq...and in my opinion should have acted upon that policy at that time. President Bush acted upon the Clinton policy...assuming of course that Clinton does not deny that this was official US policy established during his administration.

Policy was also created by PNAC...It's much more likely they adopted that policy.

It's clear that the policy that was followed through with was not Clinton's because there's on way he would have polarised International opinion so much.

If...over the next few days...President Clinton does not deny the Secretary of Defense statement today...then one can safely assume that President Clinton's administration developed the policy of regime change.

I don't think that's even the issue. The problem is the deception used to justify the war. Most people still think there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

sgt. speedbump... is a political.... idiot... like all.... conservatives...


http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/01_small.shtml

Danny boy...you are a slow learner (expected from you)...I have stated multiple times that my political position is that of a moderate...with liberal leanings.

it's... not nice to... lie... sgt speedbump...

It is the issue...when referencing the former Secretary of Treasury's so called "expose"...in his book.

Danny boy...though you may think you do...you do not possess psychic power...really...you don't.

One can more safely assume that the policy of regime change dates before Clinton.

Your assumption would be wrong if you believe the Secretary of Defense...the policy of regime change...in regard to Iraq was officially adopted in 1998...by President Clinton's administration. If the Secretary of Defense mispoke...he will be called out on it.

Exactly. This is the issue that has been attached to the book. This is why the policy issue was brought up. This is also why Bush has the spinmeisters working overtime. Something like this can be used to damage Bush in a major way if he doesn't spin out of it. This is very serious.

Again you put up ultimatum types of posts: "If Clinton doesn't deny this, then we know CLINTON started this."
With friends like you, the Democratic party doesn't need any enemies!

That is such bs to post "Unless Clinton denies", to somehow shift blame from GW Bush to Clinton. And the issue IS the deception that there were WMD's in Iraq and that they were pursuing nuclear weapons and had ties to terrorists that resulted in an "immediate" threat to the U.S. All of this was just a cover as Bush (who even admitted this now), planned from day one to takeout Saddam regardless.

"Regime change" is UNIQUE to GW Bush. There is nothing in Clinton's administration to even hint that he planned to take out Saddam. Clinton simply enforced the no fly zones laid down by the U.N. after the gulf war.

Isn't this the same Secretary of Defense who sat at the UN and showed slides of all the wmd's in Iraq?

According to the Secretary of Defense the "regime change" regarding Iraq was adopted and became official US policy in 1998 by Bill Clinton's administration. I repeat...if the Secretary of Defense mis-spoke he will be called on it by the press and presumably President Clinton and/or others in his administration and/or by sitting members of Congress in that period of time. If it was in fact US policy when President Bush entered office he simply acted upon what was already US policy. In my opinion President Clinton should have acted upon the policy.

I think you are confusing the Secretary of Defense with the Secretary of State.

Wrong and wrong.

Why do we have to wait for Clinton to say "YEA" or "NAY".
I mean..something THAT significant would have been known a LONG time ago through leaks, and or media fed information.

I challenge you to find any quote where Clinton used the phrase or term "pre-emptive strike"!

I also challenge you to find or show any information that clearly demonstrated that Clinton had the elmination of Saddam on his agenda and was making plans for such. This would include "Post-Saddam Iraq" as was shown in the article from the White House on 60 mins last Sunday night.

Give it up! Bush did it, Bush is at fault, and BUSH is guilty! You're trying to protect Bush by saying Clinton started all of this.

Specifics dood..if wrong..BE SPECIFIC as to how/why I am wrong!

Well..."dood"...the UN did not declare the "no fly zones"...the US...Britain...and France unilaterally declared the "no fly zones'.

God what a dumbass. This is typical of what type of audience you're trying to convince here at GFY, king.

Yea of little comprehension...either the press or members of President Clinton's administration...or members of Congress during President Clinton's administration (the policy of "regime change could not become official US policy without the approval of Congress) will call him on it...if President Clinton does not beat them to the punch.

And didn't the U.N. give the "stamp of approval" for these nations to enforce the no fly zones?

The comprehension problem lies with you.

You're saying that CLINTON started the WHOLE policy of pre-emptive attack on another nation back in 1998.

Assume you are right..so Bush, who has been President for 3 years now, could have, at any time, simply have said "Hey democrats and others criticizing me, we're just enforcing the policy Clinton started!"

In fact, he could have gotten incredible bi-partisan support in that famous State of the Union address last January by saying "We think the Clinton Administration had the right policy about regime change and we plan to enforce it!"

But he didn't did he? In fact, at NO TIME in Bush's presidency did he even HINT at this. It's only after he's been exposed by O'Neill that he and his cronies are doing the old "But he (clinton) did it too!" neener neener type of thing.

You are just plumb dumb. If the Secretary of Defense mispoke...the press will be all over him...as will be the Democrats...if this does not happen...what he stated today will stand as the truth...you are now dismissed.

No...as I stated the US...Britain...and France "UNILATERALLY" declared the "no fly zones".

The issue is not whether Clinton made "regime change" a policy or a goal. Clearly that administration did not feel it was justified to launch a war against Iraq.

The Bush team has deliberately played on American insecurities from 9/11 to gain support for this war. Half the world hated the US for intervening in Somalia and Kosovo to halt suffering. Is there anyone left that doesn't despise us now for what we did in IRAQ?

Even Iraqis, we probably helped change the course of the country for the next fifty years for certainly the better. I don't see a lot of appreciation. They expect us to bring in our manual on "Regime change and temporary occupation" and use it to perfection while under fire. Every time I listen to a complaint I just want to push the government to put Saddam back in power and tell the Iraqis to stick him up their ....

A side note to Muslims everywhere...

Israel is a tiny country. They are wrong in how they treat the Palestinians. The Palestinians are wrong in how they are trying to destroy Israel. They are actually lucky the Israelis don't just drive them all out.

DEAL WITH IT. Go find a hot muslim girl and hang out with her. Worry more about the corruption and oppression of your own government. Figure out how to ease anti-porn laws.

Out.


Eric
TNVCASH

"This has been a re-cording. I'm unable to factually deal with these arguments so I will repeat myself. TheKing 1/13/04"

You'd have said the same thing if your pants were on fire!!:1orglaugh

I have stated that the Secretary of Defense...during a press briefing today...stated that "regime change" was adopted as official US policy in 1998 during President Clintons term in office.

If the Secretary of Defense is correct...yes he could have.

He had incredible bi-partisan support as the overwhelming majority of Congress voted to let the President use the military "as HE deems necessary". He still has majority bi-partisan support but as it is election year...in lesser numbers...and still has the support of the American people.

I am sorry he did not ask for your advice...well no I am not...as I would not ask for your advice either.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Centurion


Specifics dood..if wrong..BE SPECIFIC as to how/why I am wrong!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well..."dood"...the UN did not declare the "no fly zones"...the US...Britain...and France unilaterally declared the "no fly zones'.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (December 16, 1998 5:46 p.m. EST)

President Clinton ordered a "substantial military strike" against Iraq Wednesday because of its continued failure to allow U.N. weapons inspections, officials said. Military sources said the attack began with long-range cruise missiles and would last up to four days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In addition...when Saddam made an effort to assassinate President Bush...President Clinton responded by ordering another attack upon Iraq.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

These are your examples of "attempted regime changes"?
Pretty weak..even for you.

Your own man, Clark, has stated this admin has misled the American public. Do you honestly believe what Rumsfeld says?

If you would read thekings posts you see he has answered this.

No. They are in response to your dumb ass statement...

As...I previously stated...wrong and wrong and now you have three wrongs...well that is not true...almost every thing you post is wrong.

Uh.. Hello??? Clark is running for President. Rumsfeld is not.

AIRBORNE!! :thumbsup I don't see you post much JimmyF...staying busy? I am in kind of a burn out stage...I haven't accomplished much in three or four days. I will get over it.

I had a small stroke a few months ago. I'm ok now but for about a month was in like a fog.

I am real sorry to hear about the stroke Jimmyf. A complete recovery...or did you forget how to "play the piano"?

The crux of the issue is whether or not Clinton was planning to take the SAME type of action against Iraq that Bush took.

From the current news story on CNN's website:

"Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, although it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than using military force."

So there was no plan for pre-emptive strikes or direct military intervention by the United States under Clinton.

Chock up another well thought out political analysis by sperm breath.

I would say a complete recovery. I get a little confused when I work on some electronic's stuff. I have 2 stop and really think, have 2 think thru some trouble shooting that came auto.

Of course there was...as there is for many...if not most countries in the world...the military planners would be negligent in their duty if there were not. These plans are shelved and then taken out occasionally...dusted off...for possible modification.

Well...hang in there TROOPER...and follow the Doc's advice.

Ouch. Did I make you angry?? Just realized that Clark was running for Pres huh?? Don't worry, you can message me anytime if you need help interpreting daily events. I charge only $10 per question.

I'd just tell' em 2 go back to school, Get Diff. teachers this time, try 2 explane something 2 them and they say you lie well not right out say LIE, but thats what they think. Beyond there thinking that we would have plans 2 invade even England.:1orglaugh

Well...different solutions come with different administrations...it has been that way since the first administration and will continue to be that way for future administrations. Apparently President Clinton had his strategy for the policy of "regime change" adopted during his term and apparently President Bush had a strategy for President Clinton's "policy of regime change"...and this is of course assuming...for the time being...that the Secretary of Defense is correct in the statement he made today.

Don't flatter yourself Rush boy. My emotions are not dictated by sheep that calls themselves 'BigFish' :1orglaugh