GOP Blames Clinton for Iraq Intel Failure

[Fonzie]

This is an AP report from the NYTimes website (I'd link to it, but you need a membership to read their site). It appears to be a preliminary feeler suggesting a potential strategy for deflecting criticism away from the Bush administration's handling of prewar intelligence.

And why not give it a shot? They blamed Clinton for everything else anyway...

GOP Blames Clinton for Iraq Intel Lapse
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 12, 2004

Filed at 1:11 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a sign of how Republicans may try to quell criticism of prewar intelligence in Iraq, the head of the House Intelligence Committee tried Wednesday to direct blame to the Clinton administration.

Rep. Porter J. Goss, R-Fla., said he heard a 1998 speech in which then-President Clinton warned that something must be done about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

``Unfortunately, he did not complete that task before his term expired,'' Goss said at a Capitol Hill press conference.

Goss said the Clinton administration gutted intelligence assets in the 1990s and today's intelligence analysts ``did the best they could with what they had.''

Goss also said Clinton rarely, if ever, met with intelligence officials and that top officials in the administration were not ``particularly engaged'' on the subject.

Goss said an effort at political correctness prompted intelligence agencies to stop using ``distasteful people'' for human intelligence, meaning America lost people who served as its eyes and ears around the world.

Calls to Clinton's office were not immediately returned Wednesday. But a former Clinton aide on security disputed Goss' statement.

``I respect Porter Goss and his service to the CIA, but I think he's part of the administration's attempt to redirect attention from what's really going on here, which is their distortion of the evidence'' against Saddam, said Robert Boorstin, who was Clinton's national security speechwriter.

The Bush administration has come under severe criticism for saying it was going to war to disarm Iraq and then failing to find alleged banned weapons.

Critics want a review of why the intelligence was bad and whether Bush and others in his administration purposely exaggerated the intelligence to justify war and oust Saddam.

``Nobody would disagree that the guy had to go,'' said Boorstin. ``But the question is do you distort the evidence ... do you deliberately mislead the American people and the world.''

Now a senior vice president for national security at the Center for American Progress, Boorstin also said it was actually Bush's father who was first to cut intelligence spending after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

When intelligence spending was increased in 1993, Goss complimented the Clinton administration ``for going into this and seeing our true need,'' Boorstin quoted Goss as saying at the time.

[Ben E Lou]

1. I am convinced that Clinton believed that Iraq had WMD, just as I am convinced that Dubya believed Iraq had WMD.
2. I am convinced that this is a stupid strategy for the Repubs, that will probably backfire.

[Barkeep49]

1. I am convinced that Clinton believed that Iraq had WMD, just as I am convinced that Dubya believed Iraq had WMD.
2. I am convinced that this is a stupid strategy for the Repubs, that will probably backfire.
Well said. While I think the lack of WMD in Iraq does boslter those who felt we shouldn't have gone to war, as questions can be raised over whether the cost is worth it, there is no reason to believe that Bush's conviction about WMD wasn't legitimate. And Clinton hating is just so passe.

[SirFozzie]

The Republicans have become the Anti-Clinton party.

Doesn't matter if it was good, bad or indifferent. If it was something linked to Clinton (even non-partisan hires like the CIA chief, that GW Bush thought was perfectly fine to keep on, so he must be doing some of his job right), then they froth at the mouth.

[MrBug708]

I'll keep my comments to myself because I tend to get everyone into a huge political arguement

[wig]

Does anyone remember when the parties defined themselves by their beliefs and plans?

Now they all define themselves by blaming the other party for what's wrong.

:(

[MrBug708]

The Republicans have become the Anti-Clinton party.

Doesn't matter if it was good, bad or indifferent. If it was something linked to Clinton (even non-partisan hires like the CIA chief, that GW Bush thought was perfectly fine to keep on, so he must be doing some of his job right), then they froth at the mouth.


Ah Fozzie, the Dem's are all Anti-Bush, so that arguement has it's holes

[SirFozzie]

Bullshit, Bug.

It's kinda funny, how "Compassionate Conservative" GW has tried to be "all things to all people", at the cost of alienating the religous right and neo-conservatives. I guess he figures that they'll still vote for him as an alternative to Kerry or whoever the Dems nominee is.

[Fonzie]

Does anyone remember when the parties defined themselves by their beliefs and plans?

Now they all define themselves by blaming the other party for what's wrong.

:(

That's because they've both learned that its easier to get voters to the polls, and to vote in their favor, if they can create anger towards the other party. Anger is one of the most activating of all emotions, and directing it towards the other party can have huge political benefits. The Republican strategists learned this some time ago; the Democrats are finally catching on and utilizing a similar strategy to mobilize their party for the current presidential elections.

It is unfortunate that this tactic obfuscates discussion of the critical issues, but there it is. But only when the electorate recognizes these tactics for what they are and realize the cynicism behind their use will they start to demand more attention to the issues.

[Flasch186]

Blame Clinton for everything then, not just that.....lets give him the awesome economy, the record-low unemployment, the budget surplus, etc.

Thats fine if you want to blame him for the bad but you also have to give him the good too.

I love that, everything good that came during Clinton's presidency they hand to the 12 years before, anything good during this pres. the give to W, and anything bad they send back to Clinton's time. So it is all crap anyways, I can find a statistic to abck up whatever i want and you can do the same. Its all very creative anyways.

[Fonzie]

1. I am convinced that Clinton believed that Iraq had WMD, just as I am convinced that Dubya believed Iraq had WMD.
2. I am convinced that this is a stupid strategy for the Repubs, that will probably backfire.

FWIW, I agree with these statements. The one quibble I'd have is that while both Clinton and Bush both undoubtedly believed WMDs were in Iraq, the former had much more recent intelligence data to peg that opinion on, while the latter relied on ancient (in intelligence terms) data that had many, many holes in it.

But the bigger point is that this strategy will seem like a cynical, mean-spirited effort to deflect criticism using their good ol' punching bag, President Clinton. Bad idea.

[Ksyrup]

I agree with SD. If anything, they should be using the fact that Clinton believed that Saddam had WMD to legitimize Bush's actions and to take the wind out of the Democrat challengers' sails. Blaming him for not doing anything about it is stupid, since, absent some sort of openly hostile move by Iraq, we likely wouldn't have done anything about it had 9/11 not occurred.

[Ben E Lou]

But the bigger point is that this strategy will seem like a cynical, mean-spirited effort to deflect criticism using their good ol' punching bag, President Clinton. Bad idea.Bingo....and I'd rather see Dubya win than one of the Dems--although he doesn't turn my crank either.

[sabotai]

GOP Blames Clinton for Iraq Intel Lapse

...Couldn't see this one coming.

[NoMyths]

Besides, it's been well recorded elsewhere that Clinton had tried to increase anti-terrorism programs before he left office, and was blocked by the Republicans. As SkyDog says, if they pursue this strategy history will probably come back to haunt them.

[GrantDawg]

You know, it is scary how much Skydog and I agree on politically. It is like he is my long lost black, better looking, smarter and more athletic twin brother. It is like the movie Twins except I'm taller than Danny Devito.

[sabotai]

You know, it is scary how much Skydog and I agree on politically. It is like he is my long lost black, better looking, smarter and more athletic twin brother. It is like the movie Twins except I'm taller than Danny Devito.

:eek: Does that mean SkyDog is a still virgin like Arnold's character?

[hukarez]

It's times like this, I wish I had that bumper sticker that stated: "Don't blame me, I voted for Nader!"


Not that I'm a member of the Green party either. Then again, I don't think I'm a member of any party. I knew there was a reason why I didn't register to vote...can't recall what it was...

[GrantDawg]

:eek: Does that mean SkyDog is a still virgin like Arnold's character?
For his wife's sake, I hope not. :)

[heybrad]

Does anyone remember when the parties defined themselves by their beliefs and plans?

Now they all define themselves by blaming the other party for what's wrong.

:(
At some point politics shifted to doing whats best for your party as opposed to doing whats best for the country.

[Ksyrup]

You know, it is scary how much Skydog and I agree on politically. It is like he is my long lost black, better looking, smarter and more athletic twin brother. It is like the movie Twins except I'm taller than Danny Devito.
Notice he left out any reference to musicianship. :D

[GrantDawg]

Notice he left out any reference to musicianship. :D
Yeah, that too. :(

[Ksyrup]

Damn! I thought you were going to say that omission was intentional.

[Kodos]

http://a.wholelottanothing.org/junkdrawer/kodos.jpg :)

Edit: Damn, my "Don't Blame Me, I voted for Kodos" banner link doesn't seem to work anymore.

http://a.wholelottanothing.org/junkdrawer/kodos.jpg

[hukarez]

http://a.wholelottanothing.org/junkdrawer/kodos.jpg :)

Edit: Damn, my "Don't Blame Me, I voted for Kodos" banner link doesn't seem to work anymore.

http://a.wholelottanothing.org/junkdrawer/kodos.jpg
I'm going to have to get that made into a bumper sticker someday.

[The Afoci]

Bullshit, Bug.


I say it is very safe to say that there are just as many Republicans who are anti-Clinton as there are Democrats who are anti-Bush.

[clintl]

At some point politics shifted to doing whats best for your party as opposed to doing whats best for the country.

When it comes to getting elected (or re-elected), it has always been that way.

[tucker342]

Besides, it's been well recorded elsewhere that Clinton had tried to increase anti-terrorism programs before he left office, and was blocked by the Republicans. As SkyDog says, if they pursue this strategy history will probably come back to haunt them.

Yep.


This could really end up backfiring on Bush...

[Noop]

What does GOP stand for?

[Ryche]

Grand Ol' Party

[Noop]

Seriously I'd like to know....

[Ben E Lou]

Seriously I'd like to know....Seriously, it stands for Grand Ol' Party.

[Noop]

Seriously, it stands for Grand Ol' Party.
Is the a reason behind this name? Or a history? A brief summary( a few sentences)

[CamEdwards]

I was kind of hoping Senator would chime in here, but since he hasn't, I'll go ahead.

Congressional members, especially Representatives, come from all sides of the political spectrum, and some are more connected to the party apparatus than others. If this is indeed the official Republican strategy, it is a stupid one. If it is the opinion of one guy, that's another story altogether. I haven't heard Colin Powell or President Bush or anyone in the administration bash Clinton for his failures regarding Iraq, and I don't really expect to (though I could be proven wrong).

[Glengoyne]

I call bullshit on the whole story. I mean I believe that republicans would say the Clinton made decisions that harmed Intelligence gathering, but to go as far as the story indicates is quite the stretch. There is the boundary marking the farthest reaches of legitimate criticism. Watch that next step it is quite a doosey.