Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
Tue Oct 21, 2014, 09:58 AM Oct 2014

From ABCNews... 2007... Oops...

That said, let’s take a look at one of the interesting passages from Obama’s speech.

"Some leading Democrats echoed the Administration’s erroneous line that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," Obama said. "We were counseled by some of the most experienced voices in Washington that the only way for Democrats to look tough was to talk, act and vote like a Republican."

This is clearly a shot at Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, not just for voting to authorize use of force against Iraq– but doing so for nakedly political reasons and for employing the rhetoric of the Bush administration tying Saddam to al Qaeda.

Indeed, in Clinton’s October 10, 2002, speech about her vote she said of Saddam:

"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

As Don van Natta and Jeff Gerth have written in their book about Clinton and the New York Times, Clinton’s linkage of Saddam and al Qaeda was unique among Democrats and "was unsupported by the conclusions of the N.I.E. and other secret intelligence reports that were available to senators before the vote."

Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, said it was a spurious claim: "I don’t think any agency pretended to make a case that there was a strong linkage between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. It wasn’t in the N.I.E."

"Nevertheless," van Natta and Gerth write, "on the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the administration. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials had repeated their claim frequently, and by early October 2002, two out of three Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was connected to the Sept. 11 attacks. By contrast, most of the other Senate Democrats, even those who voted for the war authorization, did not make the Qaeda connection in their remarks on the Senate floor."

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., "actively assailed the reports of Al Qaeda in Iraq, calling them ‘much exaggerated.’ Senator Dianne Feinstein of California described any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as ‘tenuous.’ The Democratic senator who came closest to echoing Clinton’s remarks about Hussein’s supposed assistance to Al Qaeda was Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Yet even Lieberman noted that ‘the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime is a subject of intense debate within the intelligence community.’"

How could Clinton get this key point so wrong?


More: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/10/how-hillary-cli/


7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
2. Clinton got this key point wrong because she went with the media narrative, not the factual one.
Tue Oct 21, 2014, 10:15 AM
Oct 2014

She had plenty of company, if one might recall. Anyone against the media narrative was expelled from the conversation, remember the Dixie Chicks.

unblock

(51,973 posts)
5. clinton made a calculated political decision to neutralize the "security" issue in the general
Tue Oct 21, 2014, 10:44 AM
Oct 2014

presidential election that she's been planning for a long time.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
6. Clinton has company with her buddy, Leon,
Tue Oct 21, 2014, 10:59 AM
Oct 2014

who echoes the Al Qaeda/Iraq connection and wants to keep the US in Iraq.

Panetta ties war in Iraq to 9/11 attack
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2011/07/12/panetta_ties_war_in_iraq_to_911_attack/

BAGHDAD - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta yesterday appeared to justify the US invasion of Iraq as part of the war against Al Qaeda, an argument made by the Bush administration but rejected by President Obama and many Democrats.

Panetta made the remarks during his inaugural visit to Iraq as Pentagon chief. Speaking to about 100 soldiers at Camp Victory, the largest US military installation in Baghdad, he said his primary goal as defense secretary was to defeat Al Qaeda worldwide.

“The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked,’’ Panetta told the troops. “And 3,000 Americans - 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings - got killed because of Al Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.’’

His statement echoed previous comments made by President George W. Bush and members of his administration, who tried to tie Saddam Hussein’s government to Al Qaeda.

....


Former Defense Secretary: U.S. in Syria too late, left Iraq too soon
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-defense-secretary-u-s-in-syria-too-late-left-iraq-too-soon/

ISIS seized a third of Iraq that the U.S. secured with ten years of sacrifice. In an interview for 60 Minutes, Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said ISIS flourished because the U.S. got involved in Syria too late and left Iraq too soon. On the 47th season premiere Sunday, "60 Minutes" will report from Iraq and Syria on ISIS -- what it is, what it wants, and how to defeat it.

Pelley: Back when you watched the stars and stripes being lowered for the last time in Baghdad, were you confident in that moment that pulling out was the right thing to do?

Panetta: No, I wasn't. I really thought that it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq.

But the elected Prime Minister, Nouri Al-Maliki didn't want the U.S. force. As Iraq moved on, on its own, civil war broke out in Syria. The U.S. stayed largely on the sidelines but Panetta says the national security team urged the president to do more.

Panetta: The real key was how can we develop a leadership group among the opposition that would be able to take control. And my view was to have leverage to do that, we would have to provide the weapons and the training in order for them to really be willing to work with us in that effort.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»From ABCNews... 2007... O...