Clinton/Bush-the Regime Change argument

[liveoaktx]

Bene listening to Sen DeMint talking about how Clinton was for regime change when he was president. I wasn't interested in politics at the time, nor do I find it particularly instructive that the Republicans must reach back into a Democratic presidential time to try to defend the current pres' actions. Would like to talk rebuttal.

-Seems to me that even if Clinton was for regime change, it was not regime change by invading a country, but rather by funding groups. I don't agree with that either but attempting to undermine or change a country through opposition groups is different than an attack.

-Secondly, regime change is explicitly NOT the reason Bush *said* he went to Iraq. In fact, the DSM said that regime change as a reason would not fly with the public, so as Wolfowitz said, WMD was what they could all agree upon. Would the public have gotten behind an invasion of another country for a "regime change" reason? I don't think so.

-I think there's an assumption that Dems view Clinton as some kind of infallible god. I've read some policy statements that I don't agree with-I don't like it that Clinton pushed NAFTA. But IF Clinton happened to agree that Saddam was a bad guy, etc, why would that make it requisite on the new administration to follow Clinton's lead? They didn't on other main issues-the Bush administration has sought to dismantle a large number of Dem programs. And even if Clinton, at the time, believed that Saddam had the capability to produce WMD at that time, so what? At the moment of decision to invade Iraq, it was a time to re-investigate the premises upon which to invade, and the information as consistent didn't pass the smell test.

It isn't just that senator that said it, Rumsfeld said this also in the Pentagon briefing this morning, so it's a point being hammered on

[oregonindy]

1. why is this even an issue?

who invaded iraq, bush or clinton?


bush



end of story.

[liveoaktx]

2. It is apparently a new Republican Talking point-I have heard it

a number of times today

[shoelace414]

4. when all else fails.. blame Clinton

[ComerPerro]

5. Exactly. Who sent in ground troops? Who got thousands of people killed?

Who started a war with no plan or exit strategy of any kind?

Lets see, a few days of bombings with UN approval, or two years of perpetual war with unlimited death, destruction and chaos.

Bill Clinton wanted Saddam to be removed from power.

Bush arrogantly and abruptly sent troops into Iraq as though he were following through on a drunken bet.

[shoelace414]

3. Timeline

years of Clinton presidency without invading Iraq = 8

years of Bush presidency before invading Iraq = 1.5

[endarkenment]

6. Exactly.

Heck I supported the idea that Iraq would be better off without Saddam Hussein, who was a bloody f'ing tyrant. The difference is that neither I nor the Clinton regime thought that invading Iraq was a good way to effect regime change. End of Story.

The ends frequently do not justify the means. The Iraqi Blunder is a crystal clear case study in why this is true.

[HereSince1628]

7. It is an issue because it is used by Bush/Cheney as a defense

This is part of the reason Democrats are reluctant to say that the war was entirely bad, they had voted that Saddam should go. Well, many of them voted in favor of a resolution to work to remove him.

But not very close inspection will reveal that it was Chalabi and his Neocon supporters who pushed the issue.

As you say, Clinton never invaded.

Moreover, Bush/Cheney repeatedly told us that the past didn't matter anyway since 911 "changed everything."

[cantstandbush]

8. It's not about what Clinton SAID, it's about what Clinton did not do.

So everywhere we believe in regime change means we should invade? How stupid is that reasoning? And why aren't the Dems pointing this out?