Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
Actually most of this dates back to the first Bush administration when Wolfowitz and then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney drafted a paper illustrating the necessity of removing Saddam. A mass media campaign designed to shift public opinion in favor of the war was also discussed. It was then reviewed and opposed by then General Joint Cheif of Staff Colin Powell. Then the document was revised to merely express our position as a denunciation of Saddam's regime. It's actually a very interesting chain of events. The Iraq War was something that was being prepared back under Present Herbert Walker Bush. In fact he wanted to press forward and get the job done then, but backed off for political reasons.
And it is true that the Clinton Administration also supported regime change. However, they took a softer approach to Iraq and so actual regime change was put on the back burner. Interestingly enough, most of the Homeland Security strategies we have come to use were discussed at length under the Clinton Administration after the Oklahoma City bombing. Of course after 911 these strategies were beefed up a bit. For example Clinton favored wire tapping (which he now denies) and a national security agency focused on the homeland. But at the time civil liberties groups cried out against the Clinton Administration's positions and the process was again...back burnered.
It seems they (both Republicans and Democrats) do NOTHING until they absolutely have to.
As far as WMD intel being terrible... I thin the CIA is being a scapegoat on this one. Too many agents decried the information the Bush Administration presented. Some even quietly stepped down because of it. I believe the Bush Administration was engaging in a "Northwoods" type misinformation strategy in the environment that that 9/11 provided.
I understand that sometimes the government needs to lie to us and misinform us to protect us. My question is, was it justified or necessary?
|
The bolded is absolutely true. The Democrats were all for force before the Iraq war; all for the intelligence documenting wmds in Iraq. Suddenly, when it becomes politically necessary, they change their tune and turn against what they had been advocating for years before W ... and blame W for bad intelligence and lying to get us into war.
They're doing the same thing with Iran. When W was President, they were absolutely against any kind of force against Iran. Threatened all kinds of trouble if W authorized use of force. But now, they're beginning to shift and it won't be long until they want the use of force and blame W for not doing more against Iran.
It's politics. Whichever way the public approval wind blows, is usually the way most politicians (from both aisles) will go.
Just look at BHO's declaration that American's shouldn't expect privacy in regards to his admin's tracking of cell phone calls and gps. A few years ago, Dems were up in arms about wiretapping and other Patriot Act provisions ... now they're wanting to track, without warrant, calls and locations of people using cell phones.
Had W wanted this, there would've been an uproar against it. I'm waiting for the Democrats to go against this, as they did wiretapping. As of yet, I haven't hear a peep.
I was listening to a local talk show on my way home last night and a lawyer called in about this to say they've been put on notice that any conversation between them and a client will not be covered under attorney client privilege.
Sorry, got off topic.
Linear Mode
