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.
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.
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.