President Clinton Isn't President Clinton? (1 Viewer)

[gordontravels]

President Clinton recently told ABC's George Stephanopolis, one of his former staff members, that the United States Government had "no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

Here's some of where and what President Clinton has previously said:

Larry King Live 2003: "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for."

President Clinton had a discussion in 2003 with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. The Prime Minister subsequently made this comment, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

While giving a February 1998 speech, President Clinton referred to an "unholy axis" of terrorists and rogue states. He said in that speech, "There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

During the summer of 1998, no less than 6 senior Clinton Administration Officials made accusations that Iraq provided information on expertise in chemical weapons to al-Qaida in the Sudan. You may remember that the Clinton Administration went on to bomb and destroy a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that the Sudanese said was a powdered milk factory.

President Bush = liar? Then what about President Clinton?

Hillary needs this? She is trying to show she is strong on defense while meeting with Cindy Sheehan and watching her Democrat Party become more anti-war. I don't think Hillary flip flops nearly as good as her husband. :duel

 

[Tashah]

President Clinton recently told ABC's George Stephanopolis, one of his former staff members, that the United States Government had "no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

[Moderator mode]

Please provide a link for the transcript of this interview.

[/Moderator mode]

 

[scottyz]

President Clinton recently told ABC's George Stephanopolis, one of his former staff members, that the United States Government had "no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

Here's some of where and what President Clinton has previously said:

Larry King Live 2003: "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for."

President Clinton had a discussion in 2003 with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. The Prime Minister subsequently made this comment, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

While giving a February 1998 speech, President Clinton referred to an "unholy axis" of terrorists and rogue states. He said in that speech, "There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

During the summer of 1998, no less than 6 senior Clinton Administration Officials made accusations that Iraq provided information on expertise in chemical weapons to al-Qaida in the Sudan. You may remember that the Clinton Administration went on to bomb and destroy a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that the Sudanese said was a powdered milk factory.

President Bush = liar? Then what about President Clinton?

Hillary needs this? She is trying to show she is strong on defense while meeting with Cindy Sheehan and watching her Democrat Party become more anti-war. I don't think Hillary flip flops nearly as good as her husband. :duel

I thought Clinton was a convicted Perjurer.

 

[gordontravels]

[Moderator mode]

Please provide a link for the transcript of this interview.

[/Moderator mode]

Well hello fellow color, font and other stuff user that uses stuff that makes so many tear up and cry foul when they try to read it. I think it's kewl.

Oh you want a link. NewsMax.com Sunday, October 9, 2005. All quotes from the former president are in quotes there. I should say most of this stuff I remember, right down to Al Gore's speech from the summer of 1998 saying that one day we could have a nuclear attack on a city like New York if we didn't deal with Saddam. I saw that one for myself and remember the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant bombing very well. Along with some cruise missiles that were flown into a mountain in Afghanistan, it was the only other strike President Clinton offered up against al-Qaida.

I also remember first hand that Saddam's folks were meeting with al-Qaida in the Sudan teaching the wonders of chemicals for money no doubt. President Clinton's top staffers and advisors were all over television during the summer of 98 telling us. Face the Nation, Meet the Press, Sixty Minutes and other well known programs. They were warning us because there were complaints about the No-Fly Zone bombing. Presidents react to stuff like that you know.

Otherwise if that is your picture in your posts you are very impressive (meant to be complementary without sexism in a public forum) but I bet you could possibly slam my fingers in the car door when debating. Don't know if I wanna know that or not. Oh and by the way. I am not going to post a link to every post I make because usually my information comes from my own recollection of sources (plural) I have seen, heard or read. In the case where I take something pretty much from one source, I don't mind. Anyway, you got your link, go see. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

I thought Clinton was a convicted Perjurer.

No, as far as I know President Clinton has never been charged, tried and convicted of anything. He was caught by a Federal Judge lying to an attorney under oath in a deposition right in front of her and she fined him and took his law license away but he didn't need it anyway. He talks and writes books and has a huge retirement multi-fund. Of course he doesn't get Social Security but somehow he makes it from month to month anyway. :duel

 

[scottyz]

Powell and Rice had said Iraq wasn't a threat. No one in the media digs up those quotes though.

 

[gordontravels]

Powell and Rice had said Iraq wasn't a threat. No one in the media digs up those quotes though.

Oh no don't you do that. I have enough memory left to know that the media has ponied up Colin Powell many many many times and his opposition. Just this summer it was how sorry he was for making the speech he did at the U.N. about Iraq before we attacked. He is not a stupid man and no one put words in his mouth. He saw the same intelligence that the President and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did and did his duty. The media dug them up as soon as he said them. You can bet if it's bad for President Bush it will be reported. There are just too many in the media that want that exact thing. The media reports opinion as news now. The media doesn't report news. :duel

 

[scottyz]

Oh no don't you do that. I have enough memory left to know that the media has ponied up Colin Powell many many many times and his opposition. Just this summer it was how sorry he was for making the speech he did at the U.N. about Iraq before we attacked. He is not a stupid man and no one put words in his mouth. He saw the same intelligence that the President and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did and did his duty. The media dug them up as soon as he said them. You can bet if it's bad for President Bush it will be reported. There are just too many in the media that want that exact thing. The media reports opinion as news now. The media doesn't report news. :duel

I've heard them repeatedly bring up quotes of Clinton's, Gore's and Kerry's talking about Iraq and WMD's but I have NEVER heard any of Powells quotes about Iraq not being a threat in the mainstream media. Nothing about Cheney's quotes from 1992 that Iraq wasn't worth invading. The first time I heard any mean talk from the mainstream media about Bush was during Katrina. They've gone quite soft on him.

 

[gordontravels]

I've heard them repeatedly bring up quotes of Clinton's, Gore's and Kerry's talking about Iraq and WMD's but I have NEVER heard any of Powells quotes about Iraq not being a threat in the mainstream media. Nothing about Cheney's quotes from 1992 that Iraq wasn't worth invading. The first time I heard any mean talk from the mainstream media about Bush was during Katrina. They've gone quite soft on him.

Well I am truely sorry you missed so much. I know because I watched so much of it, especially the reports on Colin Powell that started well over 2 years ago. I realize we can't all see all that is reported but the Powell reporting was so wide spread you must have seen some of it since you brought it up.

Your comments on Cheney are right on time however. I have always pointed out how it isn't only the Democrats that make useless comments and don't foster their own solutions to the problem. This two party system just breeds the "other side are idiots" syndrome. I note that some here on the forum are beginning to say similar comments on getting the work done and the heck with who is Republican or Democrat or being conservative or liberal.

It is my strong belief that the media does just as you say. They decide what the opinion will be and then report stories based upon that opinion and simply don't report the news. It's hard to just watch one outlet and get the story so let's go surfin now, everyone better learn how, or you will have a head full of mush and they'll crack the whip. :duel

 

[scottyz]

As I recall there was little to no opposition to the war or Bush's planning of it in the mainstream media. Maybe if there had been we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now. The media uses the same excuse that because Clinton said it too it must be true, there was no reason to question Bush.... Politicians never lie or get stuff wrong? I suppose it was easier than actually investigating the claims or asking hard questions and they were rewarded well for it by the admin.

 

[Middleground]

Gordon, this is not the first time that I've heard of these Clinton quotes, with exception to the words spoken to the Portugese President. I do have nagging questions, though, and a few thoughts.

1) Though Clinton suspected that Saddam was armed with WMDs, did he ever make mention of nuclear weapons like Bush did in his state of the union address?

2) Though Clinton suspected that Saddam was armed with WMDs, was he content with the job that the UN inspectors were doing?

3) Though Clinton suspected that Saddam was armed with WMDs, did he not make sure to tell the new incoming administration that the biggest threat to the US was Bin Laden and al-Qaeda?(there is mention in both Clarke and Woodward's books of this)

4) If the evidence of Saddam's WMD's was that strong, how come Tenet had to "slam dunk it?"

5) Why did Powell leave his position in the administration? Something tells me he was not happy with some of the Bushies.

 

[danarhea]

As I recall there was little to no opposition to the war or Bush's planning of it in the mainstream media. Maybe if there had been we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now. The media uses the same excuse that because Clinton said it too it must be true, there was no reason to question Bush.... Politicians never lie or get stuff wrong? I suppose it was easier than actually investigating the claims or asking hard questions and they were rewarded well for it by the admin.

You have a good point there. That is, after all, why we call them mediawhores.

 

[Canuck]

[Moderator mode]

Please provide a link for the transcript of this interview.

[/Moderator mode]

good luck with that one

 

[gordontravels]

As I recall there was little to no opposition to the war or Bush's planning of it in the mainstream media. Maybe if there had been we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now. The media uses the same excuse that because Clinton said it too it must be true, there was no reason to question Bush.... Politicians never lie or get stuff wrong? I suppose it was easier than actually investigating the claims or asking hard questions and they were rewarded well for it by the admin.

Don't blame the media for what Presidents Clinton or Bush said. Read my post. President Clinton told a Prime Minister that because of the intelligence he had seen there was no choice but to deal militarily with Saddam. He bombed a factory in the Sudan because that intelligence told him it was a chemical weapons factory. If it was, was it the only one?

You have this thing that a president says it and the media allow them to lie. Both of these Presidents had the Congress of the United States behind them. Bush lied? Then Kerry and company were stupid right? Or did they just go along with the lie? They saw the intelligence before they voted to authorize military force. Don't tell me you think the New York Times walks into the CIA, British Intelligence, France, Germany or Italy and says tell us what you know.

Of course politicians get it wrong and even lie. But when you see the word politicians you should note your own spelling. There is a S on the end of the word. Those who think President Bush just told Congress Saddam was bad are missing what John Kerry, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt do for a living. All the media does is report opinion depending on their own slant. Let's hear it for the politicians. Film at eleven. :duel

 

[scottyz]

Don't blame the media for what Presidents Clinton or Bush said. Read my post. President Clinton told a Prime Minister that because of the intelligence he had seen there was no choice but to deal militarily with Saddam. He bombed a factory in the Sudan because that intelligence told him it was a chemical weapons factory. If it was, was it the only one?

There are 150,000 troops in Iraq and none of them can find any of this stuff?

You have this thing that a president says it and the media allow them to lie. Both of these Presidents had the Congress of the United States behind them. Bush lied? Then Kerry and company were stupid right? Or did they just go along with the lie? They saw the intelligence before they voted to authorize military force. Don't tell me you think the New York Times walks into the CIA, British Intelligence, France, Germany or Italy and says tell us what you know.

IIRC after 9/11 there was a law or executive order that allowed the admin. to limit the intelligence congress got to see. Also without voting to authorize force Bush wouldn't have the support to get a U.N. resolution. Perhaps they didn't expect he was planning to invade?

 

[gordontravels]

QUOTES in black are Middleground]Gordon, this is not the first time that I've heard of these Clinton quotes, with exception to the words spoken to the Portugese President. I do have nagging questions, though, and a few thoughts. (it was a Prime Minister)

1) Though Clinton suspected that Saddam was armed with WMDs, did he ever make mention of nuclear weapons like Bush did in his state of the union address?

I believe he did but don't have a reference. I do know that Al Gore as his Vice President warned that Iraq under Saddam was a threat to set off a nuclear device in a city like New York. There was a lot of WMD talk in the Clinton Administration but usually when you bring it up you get "Clinton isn't president anymore".

2) Though Clinton suspected that Saddam was armed with WMDs, was he content with the job that the UN inspectors were doing?

I doubt it because there were constant reports of the "minders" always showing up when the inspectors were working or being there before they got to their "surprise" destination. Even President Clinton made remarks about "unaccounted for chemical weapons". I would say they were well hidden.

3) Though Clinton suspected that Saddam was armed with WMDs, did he not make sure to tell the new incoming administration that the biggest threat to the US was Bin Laden and al-Qaeda?(there is mention in both Clarke and Woodward's books of this)

I'm sorry but if I were to reference the books by Clarke and Woodward I would also want a Rush Limbaugh in there. I know I know. Mention Rush Limbaugh and you lose some but my point is that I would prefer objectivity. You can bet that President Bush was briefed and buried in briefs before he took office. President Clinton has said in the past that he supported what President Bush did about Iraq. That sounds to me like they talked.

4) If the evidence of Saddam's WMD's was that strong, how come Tenet had to "slam dunk it?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "slam dunk it" but seems I do recall the phrase. Remember, Tenet got reports; reports that were especially WMD heavy from the Germans and Italians. Otherwise, the intelligence goes back to the Clinton Administration as well so it would seem "slam dunk" could apply with so many agreeing that Saddam was THE problem.

5) Why did Powell leave his position in the administration? Something tells me he was not happy with some of the Bushies.

Sorry I don't respond to "Bushies" or "shrub" or "philanderer in Chief". I tend to respect the office and the man even if I may be opposed or disappointed. I am definitely not a Republican or Democrat. I know that when dad spanked me I didn't like it but somehow I also knew it was good for me or, at the least, I deserved it. Otherwise, I think Colin Powell is on record with his own reasons. Maybe he has a website but then Tashah will be demanding it. Whether he was happy or not, he did his job and I think has been quite honorable and respectful since. Scary in a politician. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

good luck with that one

I often wondered why you were so either depressed or at the least depressing. Now I know. She doesn't need luck. I answered her on page one. You need to read more. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

There are 150,000 troops in Iraq and none of them can find any of this stuff?


IIRC after 9/11 there was a law or executive order that allowed the admin. to limit the intelligence congress got to see. Also without voting to authorize force Bush wouldn't have the support to get a U.N. resolution. Perhaps they didn't expect he was planning to invade?

It takes you all day to drive from one end of California to the other and it has about the land area of Iraq (this has been said before although I am a very original guy).

San Bernardino has about 150,000 people living there in town. think that number can find a buried Ford Van in all of California in a week, month, year, 5, 10, 15 years?

There are areas of California that are fairly inaccessable in the mountains and deserts. I remember when they found the centrifuge in Iraq, a piece of equipment you absolutely need to build a nuclear weapon or create and perfect chemical weapons. They found it buried in the backyard of one of Saddam's scientists. What if they had buried it in a baker's yard. Do you think they would have found it as easily? What if they moved it to Syria or buried it out in the California desert - I mean the Iraq desert?

If the Congress didn't know that President Bush was planning to invade they shouldn't have given him the power to take military action which is exactly what they did. Let's see. You authorize military action and the President uses it. I get it, don't you? :duel

 

[scottyz]

It takes you all day to drive from one end of California to the other and it has about the land area of Iraq (this has been said before although I am a very original guy).

San Bernardino has about 150,000 people living there in town. think that number can find a buried Ford Van in all of California in a week, month, year, 5, 10, 15 years?

There are areas of California that are fairly inaccessable in the mountains and deserts. I remember when they found the centrifuge in Iraq, a piece of equipment you absolutely need to build a nuclear weapon or create and perfect chemical weapons. They found it buried in the backyard of one of Saddam's scientists. What if they had buried it in a baker's yard. Do you think they would have found it as easily? What if they moved it to Syria or buried it out in the California desert - I mean the Iraq desert?authorize military action and the President uses it. I get it, don't you?

There wasn't supposed to be one single wmd hidden in a creek somewhere in Iraq.... there were supposed to be stock piles, facilities, yellow cake, etc.. With our Spy planes, satellites, modern detection methods and 150,000 feet on the ground we still have no wmds. We've found buried migs and other junk though. If there was a chance at finding them, why have they already given up?

If the Congress didn't know that President Bush was planning to invade they shouldn't have given him the power to take military action which is exactly what they did. Let's see. You authorize military action and the President uses it. I get it, don't you? :duel

As I recall Bush stated war was an absolute last resort. They may not have believed he was going to do what he has done. To get a U.N. resolution they needed to authorize force. Possibly that's where they thought it would end. Who knows what intelligence Bush got to see that they didn't? If you believe the Downing St. memo there is potentially a lot congress wasn't told.

 

[Middleground]

I'm sorry but if I were to reference the books by Clarke and Woodward I would also want a Rush Limbaugh in there. I know I know. Mention Rush Limbaugh and you lose some but my point is that I would prefer objectivity. You can bet that President Bush was briefed and buried in briefs before he took office. President Clinton has said in the past that he supported what President Bush did about Iraq. That sounds to me like they talked.

If you can say with a straight face that you put Woodward in the same category as Limbaugh, then it is pointless to even rebut your answers.

Woodward is -- without doubt -- one of the best reporters there ever was. This is not solely my opinion... an opinion that was developed from the feedback I've read and heard. This is of the opinion of many a wet-behind-the-ears and unjaded reporter who need a role model. This is the opinion of two reporter friends of mine who have been in the business since the good ole days of reporting. Two, non-partisan, tell-it-like-it-is reporters, I might add.

There's tons of "Bob Woodward is a great reporter" links, but I'll just post one snippet that I found:

Woodward has shared in two Pulitzer Prizes during his 32 year career. In 1973, The Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for his and Bernstein's reporting on Watergate. In addition, Woodward was the lead reporter for the Post's articles on the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks that won the National Reporting Pulitzer in 2002. He also was awarded the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the Presidency in 2003.

Woodward is widely regarded as one of the top reporters of the last half-century, and has earned trust and accolades from government officials and journalists of all political persuasions. In 2003, Al Hunt of The Wall Street Journal called Woodward "the most celebrated journalist of our age." The Weekly Standard called him "the best pure reporter of his generation, perhaps ever." And in 2004 Bob Schieffer of CBS News said “Woodward has established himself as the best reporter of our time. He may be the best reporter of all time.”

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward

So if you place Woodward in the same category as Limbaugh, then I'm through with this thread and will be unable to take anything you write in a serious manner. Bad enough that I have to deal with the font and colour.

 

[Hoot]

Here's what gets me about all these old Clinton quotes that are used to justify the actions of Bush...

Where in any of the numerous Clinton quotes does he say..."therefore, let's march our young sons and daughters into downtown Baghdad?"

Also...for the one hundredth time...Congress did not get to see the classified version of the NIE's report, or they never would've given Bush the authorization to invade Iraq.

Also, Gordon Travels...you say you're neither republican nor democrat. I think that's a bit of a stretch, don't you? I readily admit I lean to the left, and if we're being honest...every post of yours I've read definetly leans to the right.

 

[gordontravels]

QUOTES in black are scottyz: There wasn't supposed to be one single wmd hidden in a creek somewhere in Iraq.... there were supposed to be stock piles, facilities, yellow cake, etc.. With our Spy planes, satellites, modern detection methods and 150,000 feet on the ground we still have no wmds. We've found buried migs and other junk though. If there was a chance at finding them, why have they already given up?

It is interesting that you put so much emphasis on intelligence but are you going to say you would ignore it? Oh, I see in your next paragraph that it's coming in the form of an excuse.

We know that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. He's used them. Gas masks are standard equipment for every one of those 150,000 (300,000 feet). Even you misread and pass on your intelligence rumors because reports said Saddam "sought to buy yellow cake uranium" and I've never heard he actually got it. Where did you hear he did?

This, as far as I am concerned, is you passing on false information for your own argument while accusing others of the same. If I am wrong about that you could be wrong as well. You could store enough anthrax in a 4 foot by 4 foot cube to kill everyone in New York City and actually, I think it would take less. Find a football field divided into hundreds of parts buried in Iraq in an area of almost all desert where traces are gone in days.

What disturbs me about your partisan argument is that you don't want WMD's found. I don't care if they are found 10 years from now, I want them found. I don't want them found so it will vindicate the Clinton or Bush Administrations. I want them found so the people of Iraq won't face a potential disaster. Are they there? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't.

New York City just went through a terror alert that some are saying wasn't needed. To his credit, Senator Schumer (D) is on the news today saying it is best to make your error on the side of caution just as the Republican Mayor and Governor have said. Better to make that error on the side of caution.

That's why President Clinton went on the record to back President Bush and the war in Iraq. You should try to really look from a non-partisan view sometime. It's the best way to get things done and the proof is in how much isn't done with the Republican vs. Democrat media driven "my way or the highway" attitudes.


As I recall Bush stated war was an absolute last resort. They may not have believed he was going to do what he has done. To get a U.N. resolution they needed to authorize force. Possibly that's where they thought it would end. Who knows what intelligence Bush got to see that they didn't? If you believe the Downing St. memo there is potentially a lot congress wasn't told.

On the side of caution" He may have WMD's; he may not have WMD's? When Chuck Schumer stands in New York City and says, "on the side of caution" I see a Democrat that knows you can't take a chance under threat.

President Clinton said during his administration and after that Saddam was the epitome of threat and would have to be dealt with militarily. He bombed Saddam himself during the "no-fly zone" days so he meant what he said. President Clinton and his administration warned of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and how they were providing terrorists organizations with the expertise; organizations like al-Qaida with meetings in the Sudan.

During Vietnam the media gave block after block of time to the anti-war movement. Why not? They were right there in the street and always available to speak on camera. President Johnson and his administration weren't. They scheduled press conferences and speeches. They had daily briefings for the press usually repeating answers which all administrations do. The administration was busy with a war.

The intelligence committees of the House and Senate saw the same intelligence that the Bush Administration saw because most of it came from intelligence agencies in other countries. You are worried about our Senators and Representatives voting blindly when there were some that voted against the war? Seems fair that they could vote the way they wanted. They knew what they were voting for. If you think they "thought that's where it would end" and they would vote for something without being sure, hope you didn't vote for them. Next to the President, they are it. Or like you say, "Who knows?" :duel

 

[gordontravels]

Here's what gets me about all these old Clinton quotes that are used to justify the actions of Bush...

Where in any of the numerous Clinton quotes does he say..."therefore, let's march our young sons and daughters into downtown Baghdad?"

Also...for the one hundredth time...Congress did not get to see the classified version of the NIE's report, or they never would've given Bush the authorization to invade Iraq.

Also, Gordon Travels...you say you're neither republican nor democrat. I think that's a bit of a stretch, don't you? I readily admit I lean to the left, and if we're being honest...every post of yours I've read definetly leans to the right.

There are numerous quotes of President Clinton stating the threat posed by Saddam and also stating that we would have to take military action eventually. In the quotes I reference, he didn't mention the U.N., he was speaking for himself and our country.

President Clinton never said, "therefore, let's march our young sons and daughters into downtown Baghdad?" Neither did President Bush. President Clinton said we would have to take military action and then President Bush took military action and then President Clinton stood on the sidewalk outside his private office in New York City and said he supported what President Bush was doing in Iraq. Remember his wife voted for the use of military force just like her husband said would be needed eventually.

You cite something for the one hundredth time. Let this be my first time to cite this: The majority of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and House still support the War in Iraq. Could be they want to look strong on defense or just worry about re-election but you know Republicans and Democrats; what's important, us or them?

You will find me argueing my points based on issues and not Republican or Democrat. We only have two parties in this country and I'm not a member of either. You want to hear me bark at the Republicans and President Bush? Put up a thread titled "Pork Barrel Republicans" and I'll be there. I started a thread on the energy crisis and praise Republicans and berate Republicans and Democrats for things they could do and don't.

I am more conservative than liberal in my private life. I've learn how to order my life the way I want for my independence both as an individual and financially. When someone askes you for a loan you become conservative in seconds. When you contemplate a major purchase or investment you become conservative in your thinking on those issues. When your children ask you if they can go somewhere you become conservative before becoming liberal with your decisions.

In my political life I will support an issue whether it's Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal or a combination of both. It's the issue and my beliefs, not some label.

I never lean left or right. I decide an issue for myself and take a firm stand. I have voted for every man to become president since I began voting; Republican and Democrat. I live in an area thick with Democrats and scarce Republicans. I don't think about it. I believe in God and wonder why he lets my friends die. I believe the War in Iraq and the resulting democracy is sound policy and have my own military background and policy decisions to back it up.

I think our two party system is detrimental to the future of our country whether this week, next year or in 2050 when you and I are gone. I believe in having political parties but not belonging to them. Moose, Elks, Masons, Lions - good organizations but I don't belong. When I want to help I write a check or stand there handing out or helping in person; giving my time.

If you read my posts to lean "definitely" to the right then you haven't read all my posts or all that's in a post. I don't lean either way. You can fall if you lean because leaning is usually proping something up. I read, watch, listen, form my opinion and then express it in a forum, conversation or vote. Ask Senator Schumer who I praise today for HIS stand and I believe you would call him a Liberal. I don't lean. I decide and then take my own stand. Don't believe me? You still have my respect for your opinion. :duel

 

[Iriemon]

President Clinton recently told ABC's George Stephanopolis, one of his former staff members, that the United States Government had "no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

Here's some of where and what President Clinton has previously said:

Larry King Live 2003: "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for."

President Clinton had a discussion in 2003 with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. The Prime Minister subsequently made this comment, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

While giving a February 1998 speech, President Clinton referred to an "unholy axis" of terrorists and rogue states. He said in that speech, "There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

During the summer of 1998, no less than 6 senior Clinton Administration Officials made accusations that Iraq provided information on expertise in chemical weapons to al-Qaida in the Sudan. You may remember that the Clinton Administration went on to bomb and destroy a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that the Sudanese said was a powdered milk factory.

President Bush = liar? Then what about President Clinton?

Hillary needs this? She is trying to show she is strong on defense while meeting with Cindy Sheehan and watching her Democrat Party become more anti-war. I don't think Hillary flip flops nearly as good as her husband. :duel

What time reference was Clinton referring to in his interview with Stephenapolis?

Prior to 2000, there was a presumption that Iraq had WMDs. After all, they had puchased them with explicit approval of the Reagan/Bush administation for use during its war with Iran. When Clinton said, "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for" that was the basis for the belief. That is not evidence that Saddam had WMDs, but an inference he had them based on circumstantial evidence.

Iraq denied it had WMDs and said it destroyed them. The Bush administration did not believe this explanation. Personally, I do not know how Iraq could prove a negative -- that it did not have something. How could it prove that? The Amdin took the position that did not prove that it had in fact destroyed its WMDs, and hence, the inference that Iraq did in fact have WMDs continued on circumstancial evidence.

In 2002, inspectors went in and found nothing, even following up on US leads. This provided stronger evidence, though not conclusive, that Iraq did not in fact have WMDs. Clinton did not have this kind of information when he made his statements based upon inferences prior to 2000.

President Clinton told a Prime Minister that because of the intelligence he had seen there was no choice but to deal militarily with Saddam.

The fact that he believe that there was no choice but to deal militarily with Saddam (source for quote? Time frame?) is not equivalent to the act of committing the nation to an invasion and long term occupation. There are many ways to "deal militarily" than invasion and occupation.

Bush lied? Then Kerry and company were stupid right? Or did they just go along with the lie? They saw the intelligence before they voted to authorize military force.

Kerry voted for the referendum giving Bush the authority to US military force if warranted, though did not in fact support the invasion and thought it was rushed.

Kerry and other Democrats following 9/11 were caught up in the national feeling of anger, and in a common show of force rose above party politics and political devisiveness, and supported the president almost without question. There were few exceptions, Byrd being one of them who counseled patience before rushing into war. Had the Democrats not supported Bush they would have been called unpatriotic or worse by the Republicans.

Now, when Bush's judgments and decisions have been proved so wrong, we have the Republicans saying its not Bush's fault because the Democrats went along with it too.

 

[Iriemon]

Remember his wife voted for the use of military force just like her husband said would be needed eventually.

Not true. They voted to give Bush the authority to use military force if he deemed it necessary. The decision to invade Iraq was Bush's alone.

The majority of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and House still support the War in Iraq. Could be they want to look strong on defense or just worry about re-election but you know Republicans and Democrats; what's important, us or them?

I think it is fairer to say they support continued presence in Iraq at least for a limited time. Though I can't deny your point about politicians changing with the political winds!

I am more conservative than liberal in my private life. I've learn how to order my life the way I want for my independence both as an individual and financially. When someone askes you for a loan you become conservative in seconds. When you contemplate a major purchase or investment you become conservative in your thinking on those issues.

Jeez I hope you aren't "conservative" in your fiscal decisions like the "conservatives" running our country are. You will be drowning in debt! Better to follow the liberals' lead and make sure your income is greater than your spending.