• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

President Clinton Isn't President Clinton?

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction"

vs.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for."

Alright, that seems to follow. There was no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction left, but there was also no evidence that there were not any weapons of mass destruction. It fits. Basically he said the exact same thing in different words.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,229
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
gordontravels said:
Oh you want a link. NewsMax.com Sunday, October 9, 2005. All quotes from the former president are in quotes there. 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.
First of all, when you begin a thread with a controversial quote from a former US president... it is incumbant upon you to provide a link so readers can verify the date, accuracy, context, etc. of that quote. If I believe any post requires a link for accuracy/clarity, I will note that necessity. It is also a proposition of common courtesy and netiquette.

As for your offered link [www.newsmax.com] there is no mention of this interview in the NewsMax Archives for Sunday, October 9, 2005.

However, George Stephanopoulos did interview former president Bill Clinton on Sunday, September 18, 2005 and your quote is accurate.
"This Week with George Stephanopolis" [9-18-2005] Clinton Interview

On the other hand, I also found this gem on Clinton. Dateline: 1-9-2004:
Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

In the context of his speeches on Iraq/WMD while in the Oval Office, it is evident that Mr. Clinton now favors historical revisionism and political expediancy above simple truth and honesty.



 
Last edited:

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tashah said:
First of all, when you begin a thread with a controversial quote from a former US president... it is incumbant upon you to provide a link so readers can verify the date, accuracy, context, etc. of that quote. If I believe any post requires a link for accuracy/clarity, I will note that necessity. It is also a proposition of common courtesy and netiquette.

As for your offered link [www.newsmax.com] there is no mention of this interview in the NewsMax Archives for Sunday, October 9, 2005.

However, George Stephanopoulos did interview former president Bill Clinton on Sunday, September 18, 2005 and your quote is accurate.
"This Week with George Stephanopolis" [9-18-2005] Clinton Interview

On the other hand, I also found this gem on Clinton. Dateline: 1-9-2004:
Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

In the context of his speeches on Iraq/WMD while in the Oval Office, it is evident that Mr. Clinton now favors historical revisionism and political expediancy above simple truth and honesty.


What Clinton statement in Sep 2005:
Let me take a step back a little bit. I did not favor what was done. I did favor the Congress giving the president the power to use force, because when he asked for it in his speech in Cincinnati, he basically made the argument I've made many times, which is Saddam Hussein never did anything he wasn't forced to do, so he needed to know that there would be consequences if he didn't fully comply with the U.N. inspections.

But the administration, then, decided to launch this invasion virtually alone and before the U.N. inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction there. So I thought that diverted our attention from Iraq and … al Qaeda and undermined the support that we might have had.


Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso statement from Jan 2004:

"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."

The latter statement, which is not Clinton's statement but hearsay, is consistent with the proposition that Clinton believed Iraq had WMDs based on his years in the White House.

Even assuming that Mr. Barroso got the statment correctly (how's his English?) To me, Clinton having a belief Iraq had WMDs based on what he learned when he was in the White House is not inconsistent with saying there was no evidence they had WMDs at the time Bush decided to invade. A belief is not evidence but may be based on inference; and there was additional information about the status of Iraq's lack of WMDs between 2000 and March 2003 (most primarily the inspections).
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,229
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Iriemon said:
Even assuming that Mr. Barroso got the statment correctly (how's his English?) To me, Clinton having a belief Iraq had WMDs based on what he learned when he was in the White House is not inconsistent with saying there was no evidence they had WMDs at the time Bush decided to invade. A belief is not evidence but may be based on inference; and there was additional information about the status of Iraq's lack of WMDs between 2000 and March 2003 (most primarily the inspections).
On numerous ocassions between 1998-2000 (they can be cited), then sitting president Bill Clinton publicly stated his belief that Iraq possessed WMD. While I am not privy to Clinton's sources, it seems to be a matter of common sense that a sitting US president does not base his public statements on mere inference or nuance, but rather on a compendium of modus operandi sources. Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, likewise believed that Iraq possessed WMD for the same essential and practical reasons.

Rather than being initiated as a thread on Iraqi WMD (there are other threads at DP relevent to that), this thread is intended sarcasm. It highlights the hypocrisy of Clinton's current Iraq/WMD statements as a civilian, verses his previous statements rendered as a president of the United States.



 

getinvolved

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
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.

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 :cool:


gasp...are you saying that former president clinton is a liar??
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
gordontravels said:
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 Bush didn't have to say it..he did it. Military action can mean many different things...it certainly does not imply marching into another country. People enjoy using Clinton's statements to support what Bush has done. Clinton would've been crucified by the right had he invaded another country on such flimsy and manipulated evidence.

gordontravels said:
... 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.

I doubt if former President Clinton was privy to the updated intelligence afforded the current members of the White House. Again, voting for 'military force' can mean many different things...things that do not involve placing U.S. army boots in Iraqi sand.

gordontravels said:
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?

The Bush administration led a very effective campaign of patriotism. 'You're either with us or against us,' etc....even going so far to imply people who doubted his views were not right with God. No politician wants to look unpatriotic when the nation is still feeling the pangs of 9/11. I'm disappointed by both parties in their jump to wrap this war in a cloak of flag and God in an effort to preserve their political skins.

gordontravels said:
You will find me argueing my points based on issues and not Republican or Democrat.

I appreciate your response to this and publicly apologize for assuming your political leanings.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
What Clinton statement in Sep 2005:
Let me take a step back a little bit. I did not favor what was done. I did favor the Congress giving the president the power to use force, because when he asked for it in his speech in Cincinnati, he basically made the argument I've made many times, which is Saddam Hussein never did anything he wasn't forced to do, so he needed to know that there would be consequences if he didn't fully comply with the U.N. inspections.

But the administration, then, decided to launch this invasion

Well first if you are going to threaten force you'd better be ready to use it. A given that was saddenly and tragically lacking in the Clinton administration. So what was the purpose of supporting giving Bush the authority to use force but just not want him to use it.

virtually alone and before the U.N. inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction there. So I thought that diverted our attention from Iraq and … al Qaeda and undermined the support that we might have had.

Not virtually alone, just without those countries whom Saddam had bribed (the French UN Ambassadore indicted today for accepting oil vouchers in exchange for his supporting removal of the sanctions which Saddam was trying to get done so he could raject up his WMD programs)

To me, Clinton having a belief Iraq had WMDs based on what he learned when he was in the White House is not inconsistent with saying there was no evidence they had WMDs at the time Bush decided to invade. A belief is not evidence but may be based on inference; and there was additional information about the status of Iraq's lack of WMDs between 2000 and March 2003 (most primarily the inspections).

And what specifically was the evidence that changed his mind? It wasn't from UNSCOM they never declared Saddam did not have WMD but they were clear in their statements that he was not cooperating with the inspection process even with 400,000 troops ready to pounce on him.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hoot said:
President Bush didn't have to say it..he did it. Military action can mean many different things...

Sure, it can mean moving the Hummer across the street, but do you think that's what the congress was talking about when it authorized force to remove Saddam?

it certainly does not imply marching into another country. People enjoy using Clinton's statements to support what Bush has done. Clinton would've been crucified by the right had he invaded another country on such flimsy and manipulated evidence.

Clinton pushed for and got passed the Iraqi Liberation Act which specifically stated it was the policy of the United States to remove Saddam and by force if necessary. He simply failed to act because of his cowardace.



I doubt if former President Clinton was privy to the updated intelligence afforded the current members of the White House. Again, voting for 'military force' can mean many different things...things that do not involve placing U.S. army boots in Iraqi sand.

He was privy to most secret of information up until 2000, so what changed what evidence came after that which said Saddam was no longer a threat and was suddenly free of any and all things associated with terrorism and WMD? And military force means one thing, we come in and kill you and destroy your things.

The Bush administration led a very effective campaign of patriotism. 'You're either with us or against us,' etc....even going so far to imply people who doubted his views were not right with God.

Actually that was the media spin on his statements when they could not refute what he was actually saying. Read his speeches he was very clear, and when he made "the you are with us or against us" declaration he was clearly referring to other governments not the citizens of this country.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
Well first if you are going to threaten force you'd better be ready to use it. A given that was saddenly and tragically lacking in the Clinton administration. So what was the purpose of supporting giving Bush the authority to use force but just not want him to use it.


As Clinton stated, if Bush didn't have authority to use force he would have lacked a credibile threat to use in negotiating with the Iraqis.

The decision to invade and occupy was the Bush Admin's alone.

I disagree that Clinton was not "ready to use" force if justified. He did use force on several occasions in Bosnia and Iraq with good result, and without embroiling the nation in a civil war based upon misuse of intellegence that is samping her blood, force and treasure.

Not virtually alone, just without those countries whom Saddam had bribed (the French UN Ambassadore indicted today for accepting oil vouchers in exchange for his supporting removal of the sanctions which Saddam was trying to get done so he could raject up his WMD programs)

And what specifically was the evidence that changed his mind? It wasn't from UNSCOM they never declared Saddam did not have WMD but they were clear in their statements that he was not cooperating with the inspection process even with 400,000 troops ready to pounce on him.

The statement you responded to was not my statement, it is Clinton's.

I'm not sure he changed his mind. He indicated he believed Saddam had WMDs. He may have continued to believe that until the war. That is different from saying there was no evidence the Hussein had WMDs.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Well first if you are going to threaten force you'd better be ready to use it. A given that was saddenly and tragically lacking in the Clinton administration. So what was the purpose of supporting giving Bush the authority to use force but just not want him to use it.

Iriemon said:
As Clinton stated, if Bush didn't have authority to use force he would have lacked a credibile threat to use in negotiating with the Iraqis.

And as I stated threats are worthless unless you are willing to carry them out, a fact sadly lacking in the Clinton administration. Clinton on several occasions had full justification to use force, meaningful force, against Alqaeda and Saddam and failed to do so. He and the United States appeared weak because of that.

The decision to invade and occupy was the Bush Admin's alone.

Will the approval of the Congress and as authorized by the Iraqi Liberaion Act passed by the Clinton administrationa and with the UN resolutions fully backing it.

I disagree that Clinton was not "ready to use" force if justified.

And the facts simply belie that belief. We had the first attack on the WTC and two acts of war committed against us and he would not use the full force or country could muster to go after those who committed those acts. The sad result was deaths on the US Cole, deaths at the Kobar Towers and deaths at the WTC on 9/11.

He did use force on several occasions in Bosnia

Yes, unilaterally without UN apporval or approval of the Congress yet no one complains do they but they do complain about Bush using force when he DID have such apporval. Just a little hypocritical.

and Iraq with good result,

What good results?

and without embroiling the nation in a civil war

And without resolving the situtation vis-a-vis Saddam, and they are not in a civil war now. In fact the constitution is being voted on this week and the negotiations are moving forward and Alqaeda is very very worried.

based upon misuse of intellegence

So proper use of intelliegence that said Saddam still had chemical and biological capabilities, that he was expanding those capabilities and that he was furthering his relationship with the terrorist who want to kill use would have been what?

Your quote:
Even assuming that Mr. Barroso got the statment correctly (how's his English?) To me, Clinton having a belief Iraq had WMDs based on what he learned when he was in the White House is not inconsistent with saying there was no evidence they had WMDs at the time Bush decided to invade. A belief is not evidence but may be based on inference; and there was additional information about the status of Iraq's lack of WMDs between 2000 and March 2003 (most primarily the inspections).

My Quote:
And what specifically was the evidence that changed his mind? It wasn't from UNSCOM they never declared Saddam did not have WMD but they were clear in their statements that he was not cooperating with the inspection process even with 400,000 troops ready to pounce on him.

The statement you responded to was not my statement, it is Clinton's.

but you posted it as evidence.

I'm not sure he changed his mind. He indicated he believed Saddam had WMDs. He may have continued to believe that until the war. That is different from saying there was no evidence the Hussein had WMDs.

You claimed he believed one thing at one time and then another thing at another time, what evidence prior to our invacions clearly indicated that Saddam was not a WMD threat nor was he working with terrorist groups?
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
And as I stated threats are worthless unless you are willing to carry them out, a fact sadly lacking in the Clinton administration. Clinton on several occasions had full justification to use force, meaningful force, against Alqaeda and Saddam and failed to do so. He and the United States appeared weak because of that.

Clinton used force against Hussein and Iraq. Hussein was not a threat to the US. I don't see how the US "looked weak" because of that. As far as Al-Queda, the Republicans and the public would not have supported an invasion before 9/11. The Republicans criticized him for even launching missles, for heaven's sake, saying he was trying to avoid attention to their Monica pony show.


And the facts simply belie that belief. We had the first attack on the WTC and two acts of war committed against us and he would not use the full force or country could muster to go after those who committed those acts. The sad result was deaths on the US Cole, deaths at the Kobar Towers and deaths at the WTC on 9/11.

The perpetrators of the WTC bombing were arrested, proved guilty and are rotting in jail. Where is the perpetrator of 9-11?

The deaths on 9/11 was a sad result of a security failure and failure to follow intellegence. Not because Clinton didn't invade some country that had nothing to do with Al-Queda.

Yes, unilaterally without UN apporval or approval of the Congress yet no one complains do they but they do complain about Bush using force when he DID have such apporval. Just a little hypocritical.

It was a Nato action.

What good results?
Bosnia - the massacres were stopped. Milosivic is being tried. 0 Americans dead.

And without resolving the situtation vis-a-vis Saddam, and they are not in a civil war now. In fact the constitution is being voted on this week and the negotiations are moving forward and Alqaeda is very very worried.

Factions of a country fighting each other for countrol is a civil war in my book. Hopefully the constitution will stopped the civil war. We've heard this promise 2-3 times now. We heard the Americans would be welcomed with little opposition. We heard that when the interim Govt took over the fighting would stop. We heard that when there were elections the fighting would stop. Maybe the 3rd or 4th time is a charm.

So proper use of intelliegence that said Saddam still had chemical and biological capabilities, that he was expanding those capabilities and that he was furthering his relationship with the terrorist who want to kill use would have been what?

Proper use of intellegence would have been objectively evaluating all the information including the information that indicated what you just said was highly suspect. Proper use of intellegence would have been looking at it neutrally and not from the perspective that the decision to invade had already been made and the intellegence was being cherry picked and used to justify a pre-made decision.

Your quote:
Even assuming that Mr. Barroso got the statment correctly (how's his English?) To me, Clinton having a belief Iraq had WMDs based on what he learned when he was in the White House is not inconsistent with saying there was no evidence they had WMDs at the time Bush decided to invade. A belief is not evidence but may be based on inference; and there was additional information about the status of Iraq's lack of WMDs between 2000 and March 2003 (most primarily the inspections).

My Quote:
And what specifically was the evidence that changed his mind? It wasn't from UNSCOM they never declared Saddam did not have WMD but they were clear in their statements that he was not cooperating with the inspection process even with 400,000 troops ready to pounce on him.

You are asking my what evidence changed his mind? How should I know? I'm not a mind reader. How do you know he changed his mind?


You claimed he believed one thing at one time and then another thing at another time, what evidence prior to our invacions clearly indicated that Saddam was not a WMD threat nor was he working with terrorist groups?

I claimed no such thing. I said Clinton may have believed Hussein had WMDs even though there was no evidence he did. A belief may be based on an inference. Here, the inference was that since Iraq at one time had WMDs, he still had them. That is a basis for a belief. That is not, however, evidence that he did in fact have them.
 

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
iriemon said:
Clinton used force against Hussein and Iraq. Hussein was not a threat to the US. I don't see how the US "looked weak" because of that. As far as Al-Queda, the Republicans and the public would not have supported an invasion before 9/11. The Republicans criticized him for even launching missles, for heaven's sake, saying he was trying to avoid attention to their Monica pony show.

Ok, let's examine this effective force that Pres. Clinton used in Iraq. He essentially did two things:

The first was to fly SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) missions over the no-fly zone. These attacks involve flying around waiting to be targeted by SAM (Surface to Air Missile) radar and the launching an anti-radiation weapon at it. The usual result of this is a couple of dead, low-ranking radar operators and the destruction of a couple of thousand dollars worth of easily replacable equipment.

The second tactic was flying kamikaze aircraft into buildings in an attempt to destroy them. What?!!? you scream - we don't do that, it's those nasty, evil, unfair-fighting terrorists. What we did was fire Tomahawk missiles (a small, unmanned, guided airplane packed with explosives) into Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq - and unintentionally Pakistan and if memory serves Syria. At best a GPS guided Tomahawk has a CEP (circular error of probability - the radius of the circle into which 50% of launches will fall) of around 500'. Therefore, we very often missed our target and we killed many, many civilians (who, incidentally, were not lamented from the rooftops of Liberal America and the UN as every civilian killed in Iraq today is). I always laugh inwardly when people talk as though the means by which the 9/11 attack was perpetrated were dastardly and underhanded. I assure you, if they had had access to Tomahawk missiles they would have used those instead of mucking about with all this complicated hijacking business.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
walrus said:
Ok, let's examine this effective force that Pres. Clinton used in Iraq. He essentially did two things:

The first was to fly SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) missions over the no-fly zone. These attacks involve flying around waiting to be targeted by SAM (Surface to Air Missile) radar and the launching an anti-radiation weapon at it. The usual result of this is a couple of dead, low-ranking radar operators and the destruction of a couple of thousand dollars worth of easily replacable equipment.

I think he bombed Baghdad in 1998? And the Republicans criticized him for that on the grounds he was trying to deflect their Lewinsky show. Now he is criticized for not doing more.

The second tactic was flying kamikaze aircraft into buildings in an attempt to destroy them. What?!!? you scream - we don't do that, it's those nasty, evil, unfair-fighting terrorists. What we did was fire Tomahawk missiles (a small, unmanned, guided airplane packed with explosives) into Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq - and unintentionally Pakistan and if memory serves Syria. At best a GPS guided Tomahawk has a CEP (circular error of probability - the radius of the circle into which 50% of launches will fall) of around 500'. Therefore, we very often missed our target and we killed many, many civilians (who, incidentally, were not lamented from the rooftops of Liberal America and the UN as every civilian killed in Iraq today is). I always laugh inwardly when people talk as though the means by which the 9/11 attack was perpetrated were dastardly and underhanded. I assure you, if they had had access to Tomahawk missiles they would have used those instead of mucking about with all this complicated hijacking business.

You raise some good points -- tho' I think there is a distinction between attempting to bomb military targets and hitting civilians versus intentionally targeting civilians.

Was there information on how many civilians were killed in the cruise missle attacks?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
Clinton used force against Hussein and Iraq.

A few missles lobbed at empty buildings does not constitutute force.

Hussein was not a threat to the US. I don't see how the US "looked weak" because of that.

Did we look strong when Saddam kicked out the inspectors and Clinton did nothing?
Did we look strong when Saddam refused to abide by the cease fire stipulations and Clinton did nothing?
Did we look strong when Saddam refused to abide by the UN mandates and we did nothing?

As far as Al-Queda, the Republicans and the public would not have supported an invasion before 9/11.

An invasion of what?

The Republicans criticized him for even launching missles, for heaven's sake, saying he was trying to avoid attention to their Monica pony show.

He was critized for not launching enough not following up and only doing when his ass was in a wringer which was also obvious to our enemies and transveyed weakness.


The perpetrators of the WTC bombing were arrested, proved guilty and are rotting in jail. Where is the perpetrator of 9-11?

The perpertrator's of 9-11 are dead. The top tier of the group that directed and funded them are dead or captured thanks to Bush because Clinton refused to act. The leader of the group that directed and funded them is holed up in some cave, if not dead, thanks to Bush because Clinton refused to act.

The deaths on 9/11 was a sad result of a security failure and failure to follow intellegence.

I don't believe the perpertators carried it out because they believed there was a security failure, they did it because they sensed weakness on the part of America. Just as our enemies keep fighting because the see weakness and our losing the will to fight.


It was a Nato action.

Bosnia that is, well DUH who do you think NATO is? It is US. It was our troops, it was our leadership. And he did it without the approval of Congress and without the approval of the UN. It was basically an illegal action.

Bosnia - the massacres were stopped. Milosivic is being tried. 0 Americans dead.

I asked you what were the good results in IRAQ that you claimed happened under Clinton.
Factions of a country fighting each other for countrol is a civil war in my book.

In mine too and that is not what is happening in Iraq. Just today they announce a settlement on the interim constitution and the process continues to move forward. I know you must really hate that because it burst your bubble, but the fact is things continue to move forward in Iraq.

Hopefully the constitution will stopped the civil war.

There is no civil war to stop. Alqaeda is carrying out the terrorist attacks there.

We've heard this promise 2-3 times now. We heard the Americans would be welcomed with little opposition. We heard that when the interim Govt took over the fighting would stop. We heard that when there were elections the fighting would stop. Maybe the 3rd or 4th time is a charm.

We were and it is and the process continues to move forward. Too bad for you I guess.


Proper use of intellegence would have been objectively evaluating all the information including

Which we did, what was the evidence to the contrary that you claim exist?

the information that indicated what you just said was highly suspect.

What was suspect, by whom, what was the evidence Saddam was in compliance and who presented it, cite it.

Proper use of intellegence would have been looking at it neutrally

There was no neutrally with Saddam, he was obliged to prove that he had given up all desire for WMD all desire to expand his rule and any attempts to continue his mass murdering. He refused.

and not from the perspective that the decision to invade had already been made

The decission to remove Saddam was made during the Clinton administration and was supported almost unaimously by both sides of congress. It was the official policy of the United States long before Bush was even elected.

and the intellegence was being cherry picked and used to justify a pre-made decision.

Please fill us in on all this evidence to the contrary that wasn't used then.

You are asking my what evidence changed his mind? How should I know? I'm not a mind reader. How do you know he changed his mind?

So you are claiming there was evidence to the contraty, you just don't know what it is. Well then please excuse us if we don't take your arguements to seriously then.

I claimed no such thing. I said Clinton may have believed Hussein had WMDs even though there was no evidence he did.

I see, so Clinton believed that Saddam had WMD even though there was no evidence. Why would he believe that if there was no evidence? And he launched missle against even though there was no evidence and he kept the sanctions in place even though there was no evidence.

A belief may be based on an inference.

I see. all the stuff we did destroy was just inference. All the stuff which Saddam himself said he had but failed to produce was just inference.

Here, the inference was that since Iraq at one time had WMDs, he still had them.

And even though he said he had them, we destroyed lots of it and much was left unaccounted for all the intelligence agency's said he still had them and UNSCOM said he still had them you would have erred on the side he didn't have any. What would have been your premise for doing so?

That is a basis for a belief. That is not, however, evidence that he did in fact have them.

And had you been in charge then as Kay and Duelfer and the Senate Commission and the 9-11 Commission all fullly documented Saddam would have gotted the sanction lifted, mostly by bribing other country's with the oil-for-food money, ramped up his WMD programs and strengthened his ties with Alqaeda, Hammas, Islamic Jihad and a host of other groups.

Thankfully you weren't in charge.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
C'mon, Stinger...Bush picked and chose only the intelligence he wanted to use to justify war with Iraq. The evidence has been posted numerous times in these forums. Bush ignored evidence that did not support his case for war. Do we really have to go through all this again?

They knew the aluminum tubes were never meant for nuclear centrifuges, yet here we have the Bush administration scaring the hell out of America by telling us Saddam is trying to purchase parts to make nuclear weapons.

This is just one example of the deliberate lies told to all of us by the Bush administration....there are many more.

You'd have to be living in a cave with Osama to not know how Bush deceived us.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
A few missles lobbed at empty buildings does not constitutute force.

?

Did we look strong when Saddam kicked out the inspectors and Clinton did nothing?
Did we look strong when Saddam refused to abide by the cease fire stipulations and Clinton did nothing?
Did we look strong when Saddam refused to abide by the UN mandates and we did nothing?

Isn't that when Clinton bombed Iraq and was citicized by the Republicans for doing it?


He was critized for not launching enough not following up and only doing when his ass was in a wringer which was also obvious to our enemies and transveyed weakness.

Really?

"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a written statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/congressional.react/

The perpertrator's of 9-11 are dead. The top tier of the group that directed and funded them are dead or captured thanks to Bush because Clinton refused to act. The leader of the group that directed and funded them is holed up in some cave, if not dead, thanks to Bush because Clinton refused to act.


Good excuses. Maybe the leader would be dead if we sent our forces to Afganistan -- where we knew he was -- instead of Iraq, where we knew he wasn't.

I don't believe the perpertators carried it out because they believed there was a security failure, they did it because they sensed weakness on the part of America. Just as our enemies keep fighting because the see weakness and our losing the will to fight.

No, it was a security failure that security was not put on alert when there was specific warning of an attack involving hijacked aircraft in New York a month before 9/11.

Bosnia that is, well DUH who do you think NATO is? It is US. It was our troops, it was our leadership. And he did it without the approval of Congress and without the approval of the UN. It was basically an illegal action.

I thought NATO stood for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and included most of the nations of Western Europe and Canada? What percentage of troops there now are US versus other NATO forces? Or even compared to the French for that matter. If it was illegal at least our European allies all agreed to this action involving a European nation.

I asked you what were the good results in IRAQ that you claimed happened under Clinton.

Hussein and Iraq were not a threat to the US. No American lives lost. No hundreds of billions wasted. All good.

In mine too and that is not what is happening in Iraq. Just today they announce a settlement on the interim constitution and the process continues to move forward. I know you must really hate that because it burst your bubble, but the fact is things continue to move forward in Iraq.

I must have confused the news I've heard over the past 2 1/2 years about the constant attacks and US soldiers dying. I thought it was Iraq.

Hopefully this time, finally, for a change, they are actually right about something and with the constitution the fighting will stop and we can get out of there and stop the damage we are doing. Let's hope. They've been wrong about just about everything else so my hope is dim but let's hope.

There is no civil war to stop. Alqaeda is carrying out the terrorist attacks there
.

Sure sure. And they are the ones hiding all the WMDs too.

Which we did, what was the evidence to the contrary that you claim exist?

Maybe everytime we sent inspectors to places the intellegence said the WMDs were hidden there was nothing should have been a clue.

What was suspect, by whom, what was the evidence Saddam was in compliance and who presented it, cite it.

There was no neutrally with Saddam, he was obliged to prove that he had given up all desire for WMD all desire to expand his rule and any attempts to continue his mass murdering. He refused.

None was found.

The decission to remove Saddam was made during the Clinton administration and was supported almost unaimously by both sides of congress. It was the official policy of the United States long before Bush was even elected.

Not to invade and occupy.

Please fill us in on all this evidence to the contrary that wasn't used then.

Inspectors found no evidence of WMDs were "intellegence" said they were hiding it.

So you are claiming there was evidence to the contraty, you just don't know what it is. Well then please excuse us if we don't take your arguements to seriously then.

I made no such claim

I see, so Clinton believed that Saddam had WMD even though there was no evidence. Why would he believe that if there was no evidence?

Based on inference.

And he launched missle against even though there was no evidence and he kept the sanctions in place even though there was no evidence.

I believe he bombed Baghdad because Hussein wasn't complying with the inspection requirement

I see. all the stuff we did destroy was just inference. All the stuff which Saddam himself said he had but failed to produce was just inference.

No, the inference was that because he had it in the past he still possessed it. What was the evidence that Saddam had WMDs in 2000? 2003?

And even though he said he had them, we destroyed lots of it and much was left unaccounted for all the intelligence agency's said he still had them and UNSCOM said he still had them you would have erred on the side he didn't have any. What would have been your premise for doing so?

1. The inspectors in Iraq had found no evidence of WMDs or that he had had them since the mid-90s.

2. The locations where intellegence said the WMDs were were wrong.

3. There was no basis to believe that Iraq represented such an immenent threat to the US that we had to rush to war.

4. I would err on the side on not committing the troops to invasion unless it was the last resort.

And had you been in charge then as Kay and Duelfer and the Senate Commission and the 9-11 Commission all fullly documented Saddam would have gotted the sanction lifted, mostly by bribing other country's with the oil-for-food money, ramped up his WMD programs and strengthened his ties with Alqaeda, Hammas, Islamic Jihad and a host of other groups.

Thankfully you weren't in charge.

What WMDs programs? LOL Oh right, the ones that Al-Queda are hiding.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I love how you on the right try to justify Bush's actions by going back to what Clinton did or didn't do.

The truth of the matter is...Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any president before him, and was criticized and blocked by republicans every step of the way. It's also well known that Clinton warned Bush about Bin Laden, and Bush did nothing for 9 months leading up to the 9/11 attack.

Attack Clinton all you want, but it is Bush and the republicans who have brought disgrace on the White House and this country.

I don't understand why Bush didn't have an exit strategy for Iraq?

He sure as hell had one for Vietnam.

Clinton and terrorism.....
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/Clinton_and_Terrorism.html
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hoot said:
I don't understand why Bush didn't have an exit strategy for Iraq?

He sure as hell had one for Vietnam.

You gotta enter before you can exit....LMAO :lol:
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
QUOTES in black are Iriemon: What time reference was Clinton referring to in his interview with Stephenapolis?

It was a blanket reference with no dates. Why would there be. He asked a question and the former president answered. abc.com and search the site, there is no link to post because it is a television program. You might try NewsMax and search Stephanopolis, they probably wrote it up.

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.

You say there is no evidence? Have you ever been camping? Built a fire? Poured water on the ASHES? It was the ashes that were left when the fire was over to tell you the wood had been destroyed and where. It was simple. "Saddam? You say you destroyed tons of chemical weapons. Where did you do it and we want to see the site for residue."

You don't destroy chemical weapons in a furnace in Bagdad. You don't dump it in the city dump. You don't pour it out on the ground and wait for it to evaporate or blow away. I hope you understand that if the weapons that Saddam said he destroyed were, there would be residue to be found, tested and confirmed. He never answered this key question and insisted we take his word. I wouldn't.


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.

Please. Don't make me come back with quotes from Daschle, Gephardt, Clinton, Gore, Biden, Kerry and dozens of Democrats and Republicans that said just the opposite. Much of the intelligence that the Bush Administration had came from the Clinton. They don't throw it out with the former Vice President.

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.

Of course and the Clinton Administration dealt with Saddam as the Bush Administration continued to do but 16 years instead of 9 would have been too much so there was an ultimatum and Saddam didn't make it. Time Frame??????????? abc.com and look for the interview yourself. It is evident that if I tell you again you will again be full of disbelief so why waste time?

Also as I have referenced before in this very thread, President Clinton's own staff officials during the summer of 1998 warned of Saddam giving chemical weapon expertise to al Qaida in the Sudan. You can find that in most liberal minded publications like the NYT's or Washington Post. Try their archives.


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.

Then Kerry has issues with what he did, not with what President Bush did. I'm completely sure John Kerry knew what he was voting for and that once he made his decision that would be his vote. He tied no conditions to his vote other than voting. That's the way it works and Saddam is gone. That at least stopped the numbers of Iraqis being killed under Saddam; the insurgents can't even concieve of killing as many as Saddam did. The Iraqis appreciate that by the millions at the ballot box.

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.

So the two party system didn't work for the Democrats and they made a "political" decision to support President Bush. You make "Kerry and the other Democrats" sound almost noble. I think you should be satisfied with that.

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.

Proved wrong? By who? Tomorrow the Iraqis get their own Constitution. You have yours, why shouldn't they have theirs? Don't the Democrats want them to have democracy or is the last letter only important when it is a "t" instead of a "y" when it comes to Iraq? Democrat/democracy. Iraqis want the latter and I say they should get it. :duel :cool:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hoot said:
C'mon, Stinger...Bush picked and chose only the intelligence he wanted to use to justify war with Iraq.

And what was the evidence he had in hand and who did it come from that said otherwise?


Bush ignored evidence that did not support his case for war. Do we really have to go through all this again?

Since no one has ever posted any evidence that showed otherwise that I have seen please do.

They knew the aluminum tubes were never meant for nuclear centrifuges,

Not at the time and they could have been milled to the specifications needed very easily once inside Iraq.

yet here we have the Bush administration scaring the hell out of America by telling us Saddam is trying to purchase parts to make nuclear weapons.

This is just one example of the deliberate lies told to all of us by the Bush administration....there are many more.

Sorry but unitl you prove they knew differently they were acting on the same intelligence everyone else had.

But it is a moot point, we know what he did have and what he wanted and what he wanted to do with it and that is reason enough to be glad he is gone

You'd have to be living in a cave with Osama to not know how Bush deceived us.

If you were living in a cave and only getting CNN and haven't read all the commission reports you might believe that.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hoot said:
yet here we have the Bush administration scaring the hell out of America by telling us Saddam is trying to purchase parts to make nuclear weapons...

...This is just one example of the deliberate lies told to all of us by the Bush administration....there are many more.
Stinger said:
Sorry but unitl you prove they knew differently they were acting on the same intelligence everyone else had.
Agreed...

From factcheck.org...

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.


http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
A few missles lobbed at empty buildings does not constitutute force.


Iriemon said:

A few missles lobbed at empty buildings does not constitutute force.



Isn't that when Clinton bombed Iraq and was citicized by the Republicans for doing it?

Depends on which weak response you are talking about I guess. He was certainly critized for not offering a stronger response and eventually critized for only doing so when his butt was in a wringer.

So how about an answer

Did we look strong when Saddam kicked out the inspectors and Clinton did nothing?
Did we look strong when Saddam refused to abide by the cease fire stipulations and Clinton did nothing?
Did we look strong when Saddam refused to abide by the UN mandates and we did nothing?

Quote:
He was critized for not launching enough not following up and only doing when his ass was in a wringer which was also obvious to our enemies and transveyed weakness.

Really?


"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a written statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/congressional.react/

Why the cherry picking, selective quoting. You left out from the article you cited

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and other congressional Republicans raised immediate questions Wednesday about the timing of airstrikes against Iraq, as House leaders moved to postpone a planned debate on impeachment for at least a few days.................

Lott, who has criticized Clinton in the past for not dealing strongly enough with Iraq, said he could not support putting U.S. troops at risk without a more aggressive policy that would lead to real change in Iraq.

and

Some outside Congress also wondered about the timing, though. Former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger noted the proximity to the impeachment proceedings, saying, "While I approve the action, I think the timing stinks, frankly."

And also of note

"Solomon said Clinton should have briefed more members of Congress and delayed the attack until early next week. "It would still be spontaneous," Solomon said. "He could still launch the attack, but it would not have been political the way it is today."


Hmmmm didn't ask for congressional approval before he committed and act of war or the OK from the UN, are you prepared to critize Clinton for that?


Quote:
The perpertrator's of 9-11 are dead. The top tier of the group that directed and funded them are dead or captured thanks to Bush because Clinton refused to act. The leader of the group that directed and funded them is holed up in some cave, if not dead, thanks to Bush because Clinton refused to act.


Good excuses.

Excuse? it's a fact do you deny it?

Maybe the leader would be dead if


Maybe the leader would be dead if Clinton had done anything about it.

we sent our forces to Afganistan -- where we knew he was -- instead of Iraq, where we knew he wasn't.

Geez are you that uniformed? BUSH DID! And they now have an elected government to boot. Perhaps you should thank Bush for doing so since Clinton would not and Gore said just last week that he would not have done so either.

My Quote:
I don't believe the perpertators carried it out because they believed there was a security failure, they did it because they sensed weakness on the part of America. Just as our enemies keep fighting because the see weakness and our losing the will to fight.

No, it was a security failure that security was not put on alert

It was a success because of security failures dating well before Bush was ever sworn in but that was not WHY they did it.

when there was specific warning of an attack involving hijacked aircraft in New York a month before 9/11.

Well since there was not a specific warning, a date a place a method,your point is specious.

I thought NATO stood for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

And who do you think controls it and it is a military body not a political body, but I note you dodge once again the fact that Clinton move to put our military in danger and attacked another country without the approval of our congress or the UN. Why was it OK for Clinton to use force without their approval but not OK for Bush to use force with their approval?


Hussein and Iraq were not a threat to the US.

Yes they were, here is what the president said "The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world...The credible threat to use force, and when necessary the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons-of-mass destruction program..."

Was he lying?

Hopefully this time, finally, for a change, they are actually right about something and with the constitution the fighting will stop and we can get out of there and stop the damage we are doing. Let's hope. They've been wrong about just about everything else so my hope is dim but let's hope.

Well how would we have gotten here had not Bush acted as opposed to the Clinton administration which would not?

Sure sure. And they are the ones hiding all the WMDs too.


Quote:
There is no civil war to stop. Alqaeda is carrying out the terrorist attacks there
Sure sure. And they are the ones hiding all the WMDs too.

I'm sorry but your post is getting disjointed with your jumping around, are you saying Alaqeda has WMD?

My Quote:
Which we did, what was the evidence to the contrary that you claim exist?


Maybe everytime we sent inspectors to places the intellegence said the WMDs were hidden there was nothing should have been a clue.

Maybe they were just moved when Saddam held them up at the gates. It was Blix who reported that Saddam was not complying and not cooperating. And with all we found after we got be glad we didn't let him stay in power. So I gather you have no hard evidence to the contrary, just speculation. Well sorry it was long past the time for speculation.

My quote:
What was suspect, by whom, what was the evidence Saddam was in compliance and who presented it, cite it.

There was no neutrally with Saddam, he was obliged to prove that he had given up all desire for WMD all desire to expand his rule and any attempts to continue his mass murdering. He refused.



None was found.

After the fact no stockpiles were found, what was the clear cut evidence beforehand. Your dodging is noted.

My Quote:
The decission to remove Saddam was made during the Clinton administration and was supported almost unaimously by both sides of congress. It was the official policy of the United States long before Bush was even elected.

Not to invade and occupy.

Yes invade and occupy if necessary.


Inspectors found no evidence of WMDs were "intellegence" said they were hiding it.

it wasn't up to our intelligence to find them, this was not a game of cat and mouse. Saddam was REQUIRED to tell us everything, he REFUSED.



I believe he bombed Baghdad because Hussein wasn't complying with the inspection requirement

And after he bombed and Saddam still did not comply what did he do?


1. The inspectors in Iraq had found no evidence of WMDs or that he had had them since the mid-90s.

Nope we found evidence just not any stockpiles of ready to go WMD.

2. The locations where intellegence said the WMDs were were wrong.

The burden was on Saddam to tell us not for us to find them, they were to inspect not hunt for.

3. There was no basis to believe that Iraq represented such an immenent threat to the US that we had to rush to war.

No one ever said he was an immenent threat, specious arguement.

4. I would err on the side on not committing the troops to invasion unless it was the last resort.

It took 400,000 troops on his border just to get inspectors back in and he STILL would not cooperate, what was the next resort? He had bribed the UN into getting the sanctions lifted, what was the next resort?



What WMDs programs? LOL Oh right, the ones that Al-Queda are hiding.

The ones he was just waiting to ramp up as soon as France and Germany and Russia got the sanctions lifted which was eminent.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
>>And what was the evidence he had in hand and who did it come from that said otherwise?<<Stinger

Sigh...maybe you should cut down on that back stage partying with those rock stars, Stinger? You can just pretend to inhale...ya know...like Clinton?

How about reports from our own Pentagon about the bio/chem agents in Iraq? ( or lack thereof)

How about the International Atomic Energy Agency that stated there were no WMD in Iraq....before Bush invaded?

How about our very own NIE ( National Intelligence Estimate) that stated there were no longer any WMD in Iraq? ( The Senate Intelligence Committee, who did get to see the classified version of the NIE's report, voted 5-4 against giving Bush the authorization to invade Iraq...Congress, as a whole never got to see the classified NIE report before voting to give Bush authorization.)

How about the congressional testimony of David Kay that stated there were no active programs in Iraq to develop or maintain chem/bio weapons?

How about the Iraq Survey Group that spent 30,000 hours searching in Iraq and concluded there was no resumption of a WMD program?

How about the numerous times Bush used the following words in as many sentences as possible...Iraq, 9/11, Saddam, Al Queda, Taliban. terrorism, Osama Bin Laden...to infer the connection of Saddam with the events of 9/11?

How about the fact that Cheney went on Meet the Press and told the American people that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons? March 16, 2003

How about the fact that 6 months later on Meet the Press, Cheney relented and stated..."Yeah, I did misspeak...we never had any evidence that Saddam had acquired a nuclear weapon." ? Sept 14th, 2003

The list goes on and on and on...I can detail each one of the above, and many more, if any of you have any doubts about how Bush lied to all of us in his need to gain acceptance for this war. I can use the exact words of the Bush administration and the exact statements from various intelligence agencies casting doubt and out right dismissal of any evidence of WMD activity in Iraq.

But what good will it do? There are none so blind and partisan who will not see. We should all be outraged by what this man has done to our nation, economy, deficit, environment, and world standing.

Even if you give Bush the benefit of the doubt...eventhough there is a ton of evidence that stated Iraq was harmless...would any sane man take our nation to war if they had conflicting intelligence about the danger from Iraq?! Or is the fact that God told him to invade good enough for a 'good 'ol christian boy?

I just pray the republicans nominate someone decent next time...like McCain....then I won't feel so dismayed if the gop lies their way to another victory.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hoot said:
>>And what was the evidence he had in hand and who did it come from that said otherwise?<<Stinger

Sigh...maybe you should cut down on that back stage partying with those rock stars, Stinger? You can just pretend to inhale...ya know...like Clinton?

How about reports from our own Pentagon about the bio/chem agents in Iraq? ( or lack thereof)

How about the International Atomic Energy Agency that stated there were no WMD in Iraq....before Bush invaded?

How about our very own NIE ( National Intelligence Estimate) that stated there were no longer any WMD in Iraq? ( The Senate Intelligence Committee, who did get to see the classified version of the NIE's report, voted 5-4 against giving Bush the authorization to invade Iraq...Congress, as a whole never got to see the classified NIE report before voting to give Bush authorization.)

How about the congressional testimony of David Kay that stated there were no active programs in Iraq to develop or maintain chem/bio weapons?

How about the Iraq Survey Group that spent 30,000 hours searching in Iraq and concluded there was no resumption of a WMD program?

How about the numerous times Bush used the following words in as many sentences as possible...Iraq, 9/11, Saddam, Al Queda, Taliban. terrorism, Osama Bin Laden...to infer the connection of Saddam with the events of 9/11?

How about the fact that Cheney went on Meet the Press and told the American people that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons? March 16, 2003

How about the fact that 6 months later on Meet the Press, Cheney relented and stated..."Yeah, I did misspeak...we never had any evidence that Saddam had acquired a nuclear weapon." ? Sept 14th, 2003

The list goes on and on and on...I can detail each one of the above, and many more, if any of you have any doubts about how Bush lied to all of us in his need to gain acceptance for this war. I can use the exact words of the Bush administration and the exact statements from various intelligence agencies casting doubt and out right dismissal of any evidence of WMD activity in Iraq.

But what good will it do? There are none so blind and partisan who will not see. We should all be outraged by what this man has done to our nation, economy, deficit, environment, and world standing.

Even if you give Bush the benefit of the doubt...eventhough there is a ton of evidence that stated Iraq was harmless...would any sane man take our nation to war if they had conflicting intelligence about the danger from Iraq?! Or is the fact that God told him to invade good enough for a 'good 'ol christian boy?

I just pray the republicans nominate someone decent next time...like McCain....then I won't feel so dismayed if the gop lies their way to another victory.

McCAIN/SHEEHAN FOR PRESIDENT. :duel :cool:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
>>And what was the evidence he had in hand and who did it come from that said otherwise?<<Stinger

Hoot said:
Sigh...maybe you should cut down on that back stage partying with those rock stars, Stinger? You can just pretend to inhale...ya know...like Clinton?

Naw that was over at the alternative stage not mine <G>

How about reports from our own Pentagon about the bio/chem agents in Iraq? ( or lack thereof)

Well how about the Kay and Duelfer reports about what we did find? Plenty enough for me.

How about the International Atomic Energy Agency that stated there were no WMD in Iraq....before Bush invaded?

They were only concerning with nuclear which we knew he did not have a bomb but he did have in his pocession yellow-cake to make one out of and we had no control over what he did with it.

How about our very own NIE ( National Intelligence Estimate) that stated there were no longer any WMD in Iraq?

Well first I don't think you can site a NIE from before the invasion that made that uneqivical statement, but again it's not about what we didn't find it's about what we did find.

How about the congressional testimony of David Kay that stated there were no active programs in Iraq to develop or maintain chem/bio weapons?

How about his testimony about what he did find?
***********************************************************************
NewsMax Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004 10:58 a.m. EST

In an interview with NBC's "Today Show," Kay told host Matt Lauer that the U.S. decision to attack was "absolutely prudent."

"In fact," said Kay, "I think at the end of the inspection process, we'll paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war."

Kay described Iraq's government as "a system collapsing."

"It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas, and ... terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it."

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein "was putting more money into his nuclear program, he was pushing ahead his long-range missile program as hard as he could," Kay said.

Although Baghdad wasn't successful, Kay said Iraq "had the intent to acquire these weapons," adding that Saddam had "invested huge amounts of money" to do so.

The chief weapons hunter also debunked the notion that the White House pressured U.S. intelligence to exaggerate the Iraq threat.

"The tendency to say, well, it must have been pressure from the White House is absolutely wrong," he told "Today."
***************************************************************

How about the Iraq Survey Group that spent 30,000 hours searching in Iraq and concluded there was no resumption of a WMD program?

While Saddam waited for the sanctions to be lifted so he could start them back up, not very reasurring.

How about the numerous times Bush used the following words in as many sentences as possible...Iraq, 9/11, Saddam, Al Queda, Taliban. terrorism, Osama Bin Laden...to infer the connection of Saddam with the events of 9/11?

How about his direct statements that there was no connection? Why do you try to infer that they said there was when they were abundantly clear there was not direct connection?

How about the fact that Cheney went on Meet the Press and told the American people that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons? March 16, 2003

How about that is a mistatement of what he said and he issue a clarification the next day. Throughout that interveiw he clearly stated "nuclear weapons PROGRAMS" and since he was also clear that Saddam had NEVER had a nuclear weapons how could he have reconstituted one? This is one of the most blantant misrepresentations the left makes. Chaney even went so far as to go back on Meet the Press and state again that in the one reference he had left out the word PROGRAM, and Russert agreed. So why do you and the left keep trying to misrepresent it?

How about the fact that 6 months later on Meet the Press, Cheney relented and stated..."Yeah, I did misspeak...we never had any evidence that Saddam had acquired a nuclear weapon." ? Sept 14th, 2003

Because he had. And if you read the entire transcript it is perfectly clear. The administration NEVER claimed Saddam had a nuclear weapon. If there had been any indication he did there would not have been ANY discussion as to whether we needed to remove him, there would have been no question.

The list goes on and on and on..

Well keep going then.
I can detail each one of the above, and many more, if any of you have any doubts about how Bush lied to all of us in his need to gain acceptance for this war.

You have yet to show a specific "lie", something they knew was factually wrong but said was true.

I can use the exact words of the Bush administration and the exact statements from various intelligence agencies casting doubt and out right dismissal of any evidence of WMD activity in Iraq.

The evidence was overwhelming, it may have been wrong in some cases, but it was overwhelming. And the fact is what we found was reason enough to remove him.

You have yet to post one specific piece of evidence that Bush had in hand that refuted any of the evidence otherswise. You try to use information after the fact, but that was not what we believed. And you ignore what we did find.

But what good will it do? There are none so blind and partisan who will not see.

See what? That Saddam left in power was a threat to the region and the world. That his plan to get the sanctions removed was well under way and had he been successful would have turned into a terrorist bonanza.

Even if you give Bush the benefit of the doubt...

You prefer to give Saddam the benifit of the doubt.

eventhough there is a ton of evidence that stated Iraq was harmless...

Cite it.

What was he doing with the yellow-cake? What was he doing the tons of organophosphate chemicals stored in pits dug at his ammo dumps? What was he doing with the proscribed missle testing?

would any sane man take our nation to war if they had conflicting intelligence about the danger from Iraq?!

In view of Saddam's past, in view of his violation of all cease-fire stipulations and UN resolutions, in view of UNSCOM saying he still was not complying even though there were 400,000 troops on his border. What sane man would not take action?

I just pray the republicans nominate someone decent next time...like McCain....then I won't feel so dismayed if the gop lies their way to another victory.

McCain endorsed the war.
 
Top Bottom