gordontravels
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2005
- Messages
- 758
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- in the middle of America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
gordontravels said: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.
I thought Clinton was a convicted Perjurer.gordontravels said: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 said:[Moderator mode]
Please provide a link for the transcript of this interview.
[/Moderator mode]
scottyz said:I thought Clinton was a convicted Perjurer.
scottyz said:Powell and Rice had said Iraq wasn't a threat. No one in the media digs up those quotes though.
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 said: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 said: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.
scottyz said: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.
Tashah said:[Moderator mode]
Please provide a link for the transcript of this interview.
[/Moderator mode]
scottyz said: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.
gordontravels said: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?
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?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.
Canuck said:good luck with that one
scottyz said: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?
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?gordontravels said:
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?
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.gordontravels said:
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
gordontravels said: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.
Hoot said: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 said: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
President Clinton told a Prime Minister that because of the intelligence he had seen there was no choice but to deal militarily with Saddam.
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.
gordontravels said:Remember his wife voted for the use of military force just like her husband said would be needed eventually.
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 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?