Oh wow. And I wonder how the dynamics would have changed had this been the case? Wonder how many Dems who have condemned Bush for it would have applauded Clinton for it? I'm betting almost all of them.


Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2005 12:27 a.m. EST
Tom Brokaw, Ted Koppel: Clinton Would Have Gone Into Iraq, Too

Broadcast veterans Tom Brokaw and Ted Koppel agree that Bill Clinton would have gone into Iraq just like George Bush if he were still president in 2003.

Appearing on "Meet the Press” with Tim Russert, Brokaw and Koppel also agreed that the press shouldn't be judged too harshly for not pursuing questions about claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

According to a transcript appearing in Editor & Publisher, Koppel defended the media’s treatment of the WMD claims:

KOPPEL: In large measure, when the president and his top people tell you, as they did, "Here's our perception of what exists. Here's our perception of the danger to the United States. Here's our perception of a relationship between this guy who has weapons of mass destruction and the group that just blew up the Pentagon and the World Trade Center," I don't know that reporters as a whole can sit there and say, "Oh, hokum. You know, it's just not true ... "

BROKAW: The French intelligence were sharing the same conclusions with the administration. I thought – I agree with you that I don't think that we pushed hard enough for vigorous debate. I think that on Capitol Hill that the debate was anemic, at best ...

RUSSERT: [Congress was] not questioning whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

BROKAW: No. No. No.

RUSSERT: That seemed to be a uniformly held belief.

BROKAW: Right. Yeah.

KOPPEL: Nor did the Clinton administration beforehand.

BROKAW: No.

KOPPEL: I mean, the only difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration was 9/11.

BROKAW: Right.

KOPPEL: If 9/11 had happened on Bill Clinton's watch, he would have gone into Iraq.

BROKAW: Yeah. Yeah.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/123330.shtml

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Or do we ask him what Tom Brokaw would do?

__________________
See y'all after the election. Good luck to whichever Republicrat you are voting for.

IMO, I don't think so. And I don't think George Washington would either. Both of these statements have just as much meaning as Brokaws... none.

Clinton would get more of the benefit of the doubt, because he wouldn't have a pre-existing reason or desire to attack Iraq.

But if he had tried to scare and mislead us, using cherry-picked intelligence, to justify the war, I'd be just as opposed to him.

I don't think Clinton would have done that, though. If he wanted to invade Iraq, he'd have just laid out his case and told us why. Plus, he would have done far better post-war planning.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

There ya go! You're already telling us you would have supported Clinton. So, you're telling us that Clinton's concerns about wmd would have been more believable that George W. Bush's??

No, you wouldn't. You would have just said he wasn't doing any of that. When I went to the Ohio State University to hear Allbright, Cohen and Berger present Clinton's case for bombing Iraq in 1998, not ONCE did I hear them give ANY reasons why not to; only reasons why we should. So, was that "cherry-picking?" You would say YES if done by the Bush administration and you would say NO if done by the Clinton administration.

And I can pull you up many, many words of Bill Clinton's that were quite scary about the dangers and threat of Saddam Hussein. Guess you missed all that, eh?

YES. He would have made the exact same case the Bush administation did....as his administration had done before. I actually heard them do so with my own ears.....at the Feb 1998 town hall meeting I attended.

I think you've pretty much summed up the Democrats views though. They were not really against going into Iraq. They were only against George W. Bush taking us into Iraq. And they sure didn't want George W. Bush to get any credit for freeing 50 million people. That's something they would like ONLY Dems to be able to do. Oh darn!

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I heard the same conversation. Isn't it odd these two say this only after they have retired from their news positions?

Indeed, the only difference, relative to Iraq, between Clinton and Bush is 9-11. There is no doubt Clinton would have invaded Iraq had 9-11 taken place under his watch.

BTW, using phrases like "cherry-picked" intelligence is, as we all know, a lie. It only further discredits your argument.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Er, no I didn't. I said he gets the benefit of the doubt.

If Bush came out and said we needed to tax the rich, he'd get the benefit of the doubt because that's an against-the-grain position for him. If Clinton said we needed to tax the rich, he wouldn't get the same benefit of the doubt.

Well if you're going to script both sides of the conversation, what am I doing here?

You asked the question. Accept the answer or call me a liar.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

1. Aluminum tubes. You know, the ones Powell claimed were intended for nuclear centrifuges, despite the fact that they were the wrong size and strength for that and precisely the right size and shape for artillery casings -- facts that were included in the initial reports on the tubes but ignored by the administration.

2. That was not the only example of taking nebulous intelligence, stripping out all the caveats and presenting them as fact;

3. Using years-old intelligence as the basis for a suddenly "urgent" threat from Iraq.

I think "cherry-picked" pretty much sums it up.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

But not from you??? Who then?

I'm not intending to call you a liar. I'm reading what you said and expecting further explanation. What you're saying is......a Republican president could never have the benefit of the doubt on going to war because, well, he's a Republican. But a Democrat can???

Doesn't even make sense. Especially when you consider Clinton and other Dems were quite "hawkish" during his administration. And when he said we need to bomb Yugoslavia when they were absolutely no threat to us OR our national security.....Democrats supported him anyway.

When Clinton said....Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with.....you believed and supported him. And had he invaded Iraq, you would have been 100% behind him. I have no doubt. That's my opinio of most Dems anyway.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

demos were given the same unedited intelligence that was given Bush. Most never even bothered reading the full report. If there were objections to the intelligence, they had every opporrtunity to voice it then, but chose not to. Monday morning quarterbacking is what losers do.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill