News Did When Clinton Lied, No One Died Ignore Larger Issues?

[Zlex]

Zlex,
If that is true:

then every little thing going on in the world from Somalia to Zimbabwe is now Bush's fault.
then every death in some banana republic during his time in office is Bush's fault.
then George Bush Sr. is at fault for not removing Saddam from office 14 years ago and allowing the OFF Scandle to develop as a result.​

Your logic is severely flawed.
All you did was prove that Clinton HAD a conscience and a good heart for regretting what happened in Rwanda.
Did he cause it? No.
Did he produce the conditions that caused it? No.
Does he regret that it happened? Yes.
Do you regret that it happened? Do you regret that the USA has not gone into Somalia or Zimbabwe? Do you regret the lack of action in the Sudan? Do you believe that Bush should be vilified for his non-action in these incidents?
Or are you just creating a rather large straw man to draw attention away from the deaths in Iraq?

Plenty of folks disagree with Bush's clearly stated motivations, but with the fantasy that it is possible to do so without offering a clear alternative vision of their own.

"While threats are gathering" is admittedly not the same thing as a "T-30 seconds imminent threat." His thesis has been that inneffectual 'containment' and incredibly playing both sides (ie, covertly plotting to overthrow Saddam ever since 1991 while overtly do supporting a negotiated UN diplomatic nothing solution) and the art of straining to do nothing effective while merely appearing to do everything possible('ie, 'we've' sent in the blue berets') did not prevent Saddam from invading Kuwait the first time, did not prevent the first WTC bombing in 1993, did not prevent the embassy bombings, did not prevent a humanitarian mission in Somalia from being turned into a resounding disaster, did not prevent 800,000 Rwandans from being massacred, did not prevent the Cole attack, did not prevent Saddam from rolling up on the last of the Kurdish armies in 1996 while we watched from our $30M fighter jets in their gesture politics 'No Fly Zones", did not prevent the 2001 WTC and Pentagon bombings,...

...and was not going to prevent the next attack in a long openly declared war against the Great Satan United States of America that fully half of America is turning itself inside out trying to deny has long been hot.

What is the great alternative vision to Bush's doctrine?

Well, maybe if we lay down. the bad men will go away. Well, maybe if we just spread our cheeks and plead for peace, folks like the 5 pajama clad hooded jackasses will suddenly be overcome with remorse. Well maybe if we just ignore it, it will all go away. Well, maybe if we did something a little less difficult, a little less painful, a little less noisy--like, the heady days back around the crab spread at those great caring Renaissance Weekend events, then the folks who are now pressing their politics by suicide car bombings in lieu of elections and being cheered on by CNN et al. will once again restore their peace and order in Iraq, and we can all go back to pretending that we didn't hear that knock on our door on 9/11. Look, it's not as if it would be either the first or second or third time that the US has sold out the Iraqi people and turned them over to tyrants. They are used to our lack of spine, our weaselness, out lack of will in the face of badasses. And hey, maybe they won't call us after we make such a great show of our do-ableness?


No, that's not the vision. No, instead, it's some mythical appeal to a 'world community' out there somewhere, like the Europeans, who chafe at US intervention in what's wroing with Oil for Palaces bidness as usual Iraq, yet who accept without comment US troops to this day in Kosovo and Bosnia helping Europe wipe it's own ****ty little ass for it. This same 'world community' that, along with I am ashamed to say an America that for decades went along with this collective 'It's too expensive and costly and noisy to shout down thugs and tyrants, so let's just contain the mayhem to inside the homes of people we don't know too well.' We'll set-up long lines of coffee tables and hand out donuts and blankets and bandaids to victim and victimizer alike, because that is in the great cause of humanity and doesn't require any of us to lift our averted eyes, now cowering at the ground, point them at the mayhem, and commit the only remaining sin in the world, the sin of passing judgment; the sin of choosing, right from wrong."

Because doing so spoils the party. Because doing so puts a helluva crimp in the ability to quoff great heaping cauldrons of caring capuccino every morning, here in Disneyland. Goddamn Bush, why couldn't he have left well enough (for us) alone? We're a big country, we can afford to take a few hits with **** bombs, especially when we repeatedly demonstrate that there is absolutely no downside for anyone in the world when those shots are taken. Maybe NYC. Maybe San Francisco. Maybe LA. Maybe Seattle. I seriously doubt these guys are going to go to all the trouble of launching a **** fight across the ocean to take out Balls Mills, PA. Hey, we can take it, we're a big country, and in the aftermath, Wal_Mart will sell more plastic US flags and the government will award some construction contracts and the MTV Awards will be rescheduled to Miami, world without end.

Bush's real offense has been his pressing demand to make people choose. The nerve of that bastard.

The lessons of Somalia and Rwanda , and the subsequent turmoil, could not be clearer:

The less we do it, the more we will have to do it.

The more we do it, the less we will have to do it.

The entire Do Nothing At All Costs world--including the US at this point, is shamefully putting off the Sudan so far, and the Bush administration is dangerously saying the exact same nonsense that the Clinton administration said about Rwanda.

The gov't of Sudan is systematically encouraging genocide, Arab muslims against black muslims, and the entire world is looking for an excuse to do nothing about it.

Again. Except for the African Union, made up by the folks who witnessed the world's abject cowardice in Rwanda, like the Ghanan and Senagelese UN commanders, who realize, like the Israelis, that they've got to defend themselves, because the vaunted world community will not lift a finger in the name of justice, and at most, will show up with bandaids and coffee and donuts for thug and victim alike to put on a great show of 'doing something,' because nobody can look themselves in the face after so obviously 'doing nothing.'

The Bush admin is on the cusp of deciding to give full aid and backing to the AU, as it should. You got to ask youself, if the UN was still afunctioning worlkd authority, then where did the AU come from? It came from the shame and cowardice of Rwanda.

I hope that instead we're not going to just hang here and put on great pouty celebrations for the last of The Greatest Generation, who must be shaking their heads in disgust.

We're ignoring WWIII. It's already here. Not sure what it is going to take to realize that. We need to be a little less 'nuanced' about recognizing right from wrong, and the long term costs of continuing to let the world go up in flames.

We can't go back to using the UN as a giant fig leaf excuse to do nothing. That is exactly why the Iraq/UN model had to be broken, once and for all.

Iraq is a start, but we(the world/international community)have dug ourselves into a deep, deep hole, and only a few have stopped digging for the moment.

 

[Zlex]

Clinton never lied about Rwanda and I challege you to find a credible link that indicates that he did.

1] We/USA gave explicit cover to Belgium to cut and run.
2] In response to what we/USA knew was going on in Rwanda, we rushed to the UN to lobby only for an immediate pullout of all UN Peacekeeping forces from Rwanda; Belgium was eternally grateful for the face saving cover. See? The world's only remaining Superpower is screaming, "Cut and Run!" so how can tiny Belgium be expected to provide backbone for UN troops in Rwanda?
3] At the highest levels of our government, the only debate was about what form this pullout should take; should it be a complete pullout, or a 90% pullout? Should we maintain some token force at the borders to 'contain' the violence. Where should any temporay froce be deployed to assist in pulling US citizens out of Rwanda. There was not one single voice of dissent in the highest levels of the US Administration suggesting that maybe the thing to do is to ackowledge that this is in fact a genocide and that the right thing to do was enforce the written UN mission, codified in 1947, and summed up as "never again." It is a complete, unanimous, full force "cut and run" in the face of teenagers with machetes hacking people to death because they were Tutsi, and because their Huto controlled government was on the radio instructing them to do that.
4] In response to a suggestion that we use our defense technology to jam the government KKK/hate broadcasts, broadcasts that were providing specific mission statements such as 'go to such and such an address and kill the so-an-so family, they are part Tutsi', a Pentagon lawyer objected that this would be in violation of freedom of speech and international broadcast law, and besides, it would have cost the US about $8000/day to operate the equipment.
5] When we were finally shamed by al the world attention and focus and undeniable fact that a genocide was indeed raging in Rwanda and the world was doing nothing, our only response was to offer up an internal 3 month debate about the use of 50 APCs for the Ghanian troops, who is going to pay for transportaion and training, etc.. That's it.

Of course, this was all back when the UN loved the Clinton Administration. This was all back when the Europeans and the UN and the US Administration were all in one giant lockstep love affair. If I'm not mistaken, the Four Seasons used to have a Friday special, "Faux Realpolitick Roast Beef" made from soy.

Hey, we've got an efficient operation going on with this "Oil for Food" program. Saddam, Russia, France, and the UN/Kofi's son have got things well in control, what is all this nonsense about intervention in Iraq? Never mind, US troops are still in Bosnia and Kosovo, wiping Europe's ass for it...again, again.


It's not that hard to know what is best--what is right.

1] It's right that folks freely elect their leaders. It is wrong to do no more than snicker at 'elections' where 99.9999% of the vote goes to Saddam Hussein.

2] It's wrong that Shiite clerics murder rival Shiite Clerics. It's right that they be brouight to justice, even if that requires the use of force to enforce Iraqi judges rulings.

3] It's wrong that civilians are taken hostage and threated with being burned alive. It's right to stand up to thugs like that, with force if necessary.

4] It's wrong that mobs resort to vigilante armed militia in the context of a peaceful political process. It's right to face down megapolitics with brute force if necessary, to allow people to choose their leadership peacefully.

5] It's right to back the folks seeking a peaceful, orderly Iraq. It's wrong to back the thugs.

6] It's right to help Iraqis rebuild their country. It's wrong to sabotage that effort at every turn.

7] It's wrong to run a country by deliberately exercising a campaign of terror and fear, including torture, rape, and murder. It's right to face down such thuggery.

8] It's wrong to skim humanitarian Oil for Food programs, and to ride out UN and world sanctions by passing on every hardship to your people in thrall, while living in unimaginable palaces and squirreling away billions worldwide. It's right to break that strangelhold.

9] It's right to support moderate Shiite clerics who would condemn the actions of radical murdering Shiite clerics. It's wrong to support murdering radical Shiite clerics.

10] It's wrong to raise your children to hate and aspire to murder and martyrdom with fantastic tales of virgins in heaven; it is NOT just an alternative flavor of religion that does such things, to be respected, no more than the KKK is just an alternative flavor of Christianity. It is right to face down the KKK in whatever flavor it crops up, anywhere.

11] In Iraq, it is right to use force to defend the opressed from megapolitical thugs. It's right to not cut and run this time. It's right to leave only when a free Iraqi people tell us to leave.

12] It's wrong to use as an excuse, "We've acted poorly in the past" as an excuse to continue to act poorly. It's right to recognize and correct our actions, and demand that of our leaders.

13] It's wrong to use as an excuse "We can't fix every wrong" as an excuse to endlessly fix none. It's right to pick our actions, and when we do, to act credibly, reducing our need in the future to leave our shores to project credible force to fix other wrongs in other places. If nobody on this Earth filfills the role of crdible force from over the horizon, then every corner of the Earth will eventually be run by thugs, and the Earth will be up in flames. We could no more run the smallest community on Earth this way, it is no way to run the world community.

I don't think there is or was a solution to either Iraq or the ME problems in general that did not involve violence of some type. Why? Because, prima facie, the place is already in flames, Iraq was in thrall to a brutal Stalinist dictatorship. There was no Magic Bullet solution that was going to suddenly have everybody singing Kumbaya.

Further, in the realm of whatever violent solutions there might have been, there is no way of telling if we've chosen 'the' solution that involves the abslolute least amount of violence in either the short run or long run. In fact, given the track record of the human race, I'd pretty much be shocked to find out that we had faollowed the optimuim, perfect path to Nirvana. But, moot, and I'm not going to waste a lot of time angsting over the unknowable by anybody truth of that.

Instead, it is enough to keep in mind what is right, and what is wrong. If you are really going to be ringing doorbells for me, make sure you keep the list straight in your head.

Oh, forget the list; it's not as hard as some would make us believe. We all know it right away, we just sometimes find all kind of reasons to finesse it. Not black and white becomes grey becomes black is white, and before you know it, we are making a moral equivalence between gov't forces sedning out gangs of teenagers with machetes hacking unarmed folks to death in churches with folks arming themselves to defend against same. 'Folks killing folks, that's all we know, it's a "dual-genocide," we can't figure out Hutu is Hutu, let 'em rip.'

No, no, demonstrably, No. We knew who was killing who, how, and why. We knew that if we admittied knowing this, we would be held liable to go stop it, and the poll numbers just did not look good for that, so ... black is white.

Never again? Neville again. How about, again and again?

 

[Skyhunter]

1] We/USA gave explicit cover to Belgium to cut and run.
2] In response to what we/USA knew was going on in Rwanda, we rushed to the UN to lobby only for an immediate pullout of all UN Peacekeeping forces from Rwanda; Belgium was eternally grateful for the face saving cover. See? The world's only remaining Superpower is screaming, "Cut and Run!" so how can tiny Belgium be expected to provide backbone for UN troops in Rwanda?
3] At the highest levels of our government, the only debate was about what form this pullout should take; should it be a complete pullout, or a 90% pullout? Should we maintain some token force at the borders to 'contain' the violence. Where should any temporay froce be deployed to assist in pulling US citizens out of Rwanda. There was not one single voice of dissent in the highest levels of the US Administration suggesting that maybe the thing to do is to ackowledge that this is in fact a genocide and that the right thing to do was enforce the written UN mission, codified in 1947, and summed up as "never again." It is a complete, unanimous, full force "cut and run" in the face of teenagers with machetes hacking people to death because they were Tutsi, and because their Huto controlled government was on the radio instructing them to do that.
4] In response to a suggestion that we use our defense technology to jam the government KKK/hate broadcasts, broadcasts that were providing specific mission statements such as 'go to such and such an address and kill the so-an-so family, they are part Tutsi', a Pentagon lawyer objected that this would be in violation of freedom of speech and international broadcast law, and besides, it would have cost the US about $8000/day to operate the equipment.
5] When we were finally shamed by al the world attention and focus and undeniable fact that a genocide was indeed raging in Rwanda and the world was doing nothing, our only response was to offer up an internal 3 month debate about the use of 50 APCs for the Ghanian troops, who is going to pay for transportaion and training, etc.. That's it.
Of course, this was all back when the UN loved the Clinton Administration. This was all back when the Europeans and the UN and the US Administration were all in one giant lockstep love affair. If I'm not mistaken, the Four Seasons used to have a Friday special, "Faux Realpolitick Roast Beef" made from soy.
Hey, we've got an efficient operation going on with this "Oil for Food" program. Saddam, Russia, France, and the UN/Kofi's son have got things well in control, what is all this nonsense about intervention in Iraq? Never mind, US troops are still in Bosnia and Kosovo, wiping Europe's ass for it...again, again.
It's not that hard to know what is best--what is right.
1] It's right that folks freely elect their leaders. It is wrong to do no more than snicker at 'elections' where 99.9999% of the vote goes to Saddam Hussein.
2] It's wrong that Shiite clerics murder rival Shiite Clerics. It's right that they be brouight to justice, even if that requires the use of force to enforce Iraqi judges rulings.
3] It's wrong that civilians are taken hostage and threated with being burned alive. It's right to stand up to thugs like that, with force if necessary.
4] It's wrong that mobs resort to vigilante armed militia in the context of a peaceful political process. It's right to face down megapolitics with brute force if necessary, to allow people to choose their leadership peacefully.
5] It's right to back the folks seeking a peaceful, orderly Iraq. It's wrong to back the thugs.
6] It's right to help Iraqis rebuild their country. It's wrong to sabotage that effort at every turn.
7] It's wrong to run a country by deliberately exercising a campaign of terror and fear, including torture, rape, and murder. It's right to face down such thuggery.
8] It's wrong to skim humanitarian Oil for Food programs, and to ride out UN and world sanctions by passing on every hardship to your people in thrall, while living in unimaginable palaces and squirreling away billions worldwide. It's right to break that strangelhold.
9] It's right to support moderate Shiite clerics who would condemn the actions of radical murdering Shiite clerics. It's wrong to support murdering radical Shiite clerics.
10] It's wrong to raise your children to hate and aspire to murder and martyrdom with fantastic tales of virgins in heaven; it is NOT just an alternative flavor of religion that does such things, to be respected, no more than the KKK is just an alternative flavor of Christianity. It is right to face down the KKK in whatever flavor it crops up, anywhere.
11] In Iraq, it is right to use force to defend the opressed from megapolitical thugs. It's right to not cut and run this time. It's right to leave only when a free Iraqi people tell us to leave.
12] It's wrong to use as an excuse, "We've acted poorly in the past" as an excuse to continue to act poorly. It's right to recognize and correct our actions, and demand that of our leaders.
13] It's wrong to use as an excuse "We can't fix every wrong" as an excuse to endlessly fix none. It's right to pick our actions, and when we do, to act credibly, reducing our need in the future to leave our shores to project credible force to fix other wrongs in other places. If nobody on this Earth filfills the role of crdible force from over the horizon, then every corner of the Earth will eventually be run by thugs, and the Earth will be up in flames. We could no more run the smallest community on Earth this way, it is no way to run the world community.
I don't think there is or was a solution to either Iraq or the ME problems in general that did not involve violence of some type. Why? Because, prima facie, the place is already in flames, Iraq was in thrall to a brutal Stalinist dictatorship. There was no Magic Bullet solution that was going to suddenly have everybody singing Kumbaya.
Further, in the realm of whatever violent solutions there might have been, there is no way of telling if we've chosen 'the' solution that involves the abslolute least amount of violence in either the short run or long run. In fact, given the track record of the human race, I'd pretty much be shocked to find out that we had faollowed the optimuim, perfect path to Nirvana. But, moot, and I'm not going to waste a lot of time angsting over the unknowable by anybody truth of that.
Instead, it is enough to keep in mind what is right, and what is wrong. If you are really going to be ringing doorbells for me, make sure you keep the list straight in your head.
Oh, forget the list; it's not as hard as some would make us believe. We all know it right away, we just sometimes find all kind of reasons to finesse it. Not black and white becomes grey becomes black is white, and before you know it, we are making a moral equivalence between gov't forces sedning out gangs of teenagers with machetes hacking unarmed folks to death in churches with folks arming themselves to defend against same. 'Folks killing folks, that's all we know, it's a "dual-genocide," we can't figure out Hutu is Hutu, let 'em rip.'
No, no, demonstrably, No. We knew who was killing who, how, and why. We knew that if we admittied knowing this, we would be held liable to go stop it, and the poll numbers just did not look good for that, so ... black is white.
Never again? Neville again. How about, again and again?

Nicely written op-eds. Utter BS and totally unsourced.

Are you a professional pundit?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Plenty of folks disagree with Bush's clearly stated motivations, but with the fantasy that it is possible to do so without offering a clear alternative vision of their own.
"While threats are gathering" is admittedly not the same thing as a "T-30 seconds imminent threat." His thesis has been that inneffectual 'containment' and incredibly playing both sides (ie, covertly plotting to overthrow Saddam ever since 1991 while overtly do supporting a negotiated UN diplomatic nothing solution) and the art of straining to do nothing effective while merely appearing to do everything possible('ie, 'we've' sent in the blue berets') did not prevent Saddam from invading Kuwait the first time, did not prevent the first WTC bombing in 1993, did not prevent the embassy bombings, did not prevent a humanitarian mission in Somalia from being turned into a resounding disaster, did not prevent 800,000 Rwandans from being massacred, did not prevent the Cole attack, did not prevent Saddam from rolling up on the last of the Kurdish armies in 1996 while we watched from our $30M fighter jets in their gesture politics 'No Fly Zones", did not prevent the 2001 WTC and Pentagon bombings,...Yadda ... Yadda ... Yadda

What are you, running for office?

Personally, I go for number of posts not a word count myself.

Now, once we cut through the rhetoric ...

Has US involvement in Iraq stopped terrorism?

Come to think of it, was any of Iraq about terrorism?

You listed a laundry list of terrorist acts including the 'Cole' and the 'WTC' and have failed to link any of it to why you are in Iraq.

So you're saying that 'because you had jets flying in a 'no fly zone' around the geographic area we know as Iraq, the 2001 WTC and Pentagon Bombings (??!? did you see what happened ... There were no bombs) happened and we had to do something and so we invaded Iraq'.

Dude, when you get frustrated, why don't you just punch the wall like everyone else.

When you're frustrated at home and your wife pi$$es you off, you don't just punch the first stranger that 'cuts you off on the highway'. That doesn't make you a world leader, that makes you a subject of a C.O.P.S. episode.

Naaah. What you just did was get a couple of buildings torched in NYC, went after the culprit, lost interest and arrested a guy for crimes he committed two weeks before he shook hands with Rumsfeld.

Your whole post consists of 'We were frustrated and needed to do something ... Anything ... so we kicked the neigbour's dog and we killed the neigbour to get to it'

 

[The Smoking Man]

1] We/USA gave explicit cover to Belgium to cut and run.
2] In response to what we/USA knew was going on in Rwanda, we rushed to the UN to lobby only for an immediate pullout of all UN Peacekeeping forces from Rwanda; Belgium was eternally grateful for the face saving cover. See? The world's only remaining Superpower is screaming, "Cut and Run!" so how can tiny Belgium be expected to provide backbone for UN troops in Rwanda?
3] ...

Ummm ... Zlex!?

You quoted one line from a poster and cut n' pasted a totally irrelevant article that you seem to have in text files.

I mean, it seems highly unlikely you are churning out 1,000 word essays every couple of minutes.

You're not just trolling here ... you are a parody of a troll.

 

[edward]

ZLEX

Good god, you try to make it sould like some of us feel sorry for Saddam. NOT SO pal. A single bullet would have and should have taken Saddam out of the picture.

Don't hand us the long diatribe about why you think the Bush administration did what it did and when. We have heard it over and over again. Iraq is about OIL always was been and always will be.

If the only natural resource in Iraq was broccoli, do you really think we would have invaded?

 

[edward]

Ummm ... Zlex!?
You're not just trolling here ... you are a parody of a troll.

A parody of a spin troll .

 

[Zlex]

I am not one to lie, I read books not the in-ter-net. But if folks dont' believe me, I quickly googled.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1183889,00.html

President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.

Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide".

Ms Des Forges said: "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination."

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia

Feel free to check out:

Bob Kerrey
David Rieff's "A Bed for The Nightumanitarianism in Crisis."
Samantha Powers 'Problems from Hell'
PBS's "Ghosts of Rwanda"

 

[Zlex]

ZLEX
Good god, you try to make it sould like some of us feel sorry for Saddam. NOT SO pal. A single bullet would have and should have taken Saddam out of the picture.
Don't hand us the long diatribe about why you think the Bush administration did what it did and when. We have heard it over and over again. Iraq is about OIL always was been and always will be.
If the only natural resource in Iraq was broccoli, do you really think we would have invaded?

Nobody is crying for poor old Saddam Hussein...the man who was deposed based on a war started by LIES, LIES, LIES, for no reason whatsoever.

So, as you say and I agree, if the first part is true(nobody is crying for poor old Saddam Hussein), then the second part is either not true, or it is evidence, along with the first part, of a contradiction by those who yet claim to believe the latter. At the very least, of some severe character flaw. How could any such hypothetical person believe that the poor man was deposed based on lies, lies, lies/for o good reason whatsoever, and yet cry not one utterence for justice for the poor man?

Look, if "cry all you want" is "not at all, not even the slightest bit"--then, good for you! I'm just pointing out the contradiction implied by, if that amount is "not at all, not even a little bit", of yet clinging to the latter "no reason whatsoever/lies lies lies" nonsense.

Aka, the premise of this and thousands of other bumper stucker threads just like this.

Not that you would do such a speciouis, insincere, and illogical thing. Of course not; who in their right mind would?


Oh, look, here is how its attempted. They say, "Well, he was a bad, bad man, but that was not sufficient reason to wage war, still, we're glad he's gone."


As if that was the slightest bit different. "He was a bad, bad man, but not bad enough to actually do anything about, such as 'We'll get him this time' in 1998.

And yet, Bush 'did something,' even though such hypothetical people believe that Saddam's relative 'badness' was precisely just barely insufficient to justify the 'doing.' To which I'd have to ask again, then where is the crying for justice for this bad but not bad enough to do what was done man and his murdered sons?

Nowhere, non -existing. Certainly not you or anyone here, why , such an illogical death grip clinging to a Big Headed Puppet Parade Placard (BUSH LIED!) would be beneath anyone of reasonable intelligence.

Especially in the face of his pending trial before the world.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I am not one to lie, I read books not the in-ter-net.

Ve-ry-gud.

Pi-ty u do-n't re-ad in-ter-net.

You might then be able to carry on himan discourse rather than post a bunch of dissasociated articles without just keying in on certain words contained in other posters opinions.

For example:

Clinton never lied about Rwanda and I challege you to find a credible link that indicates that he did.

You then wrote an essay which included references to the KKK!?

Now you say 'I read books'.

Well, it certainly is nice that you have found a way to employ your two opposable thumbs at the same time. I hear Harry Potter is quite good and it tends to stray away from Neocon rhetoric.:zzz:

 

[The Smoking Man]

Nobody is crying for poor old Saddam Hussein...the man who was deposed based on a war started by LIES, LIES, LIES, for no reason whatsoever.
So, as you say and I agree, if the first part is true(nobody is crying for poor old Saddam Hussein), then the second part is either not true, or it is evidence, along with the first part, of a contradiction by those who yet claim to believe the latter. At the very least, of some severe character flaw. How could any such hypothetical person believe that the poor man was deposed based on lies, lies, lies/for o good reason whatsoever, and yet cry not one utterence for justice for the poor man?
Look, if "cry all you want" is "not at all, not even the slightest bit"--then, good for you! I'm just pointing out the contradiction implied by, if that amount is "not at all, not even a little bit", of yet clinging to the latter "no reason whatsoever/lies lies lies" nonsense.
Aka, the premise of this and thousands of other bumper stucker threads just like this.
Not that you would do such a speciouis, insincere, and illogical thing. Of course not; who in their right mind would?
Oh, look, here is how its attempted. They say, "Well, he was a bad, bad man, but that was not sufficient reason to wage war, still, we're glad he's gone."
As if that was the slightest bit different. "He was a bad, bad man, but not bad enough to actually do anything about, such as 'We'll get him this time' in 1998.
And yet, Bush 'did something,' even though such hypothetical people believe that Saddam's relative 'badness' was precisely just barely insufficient to justify the 'doing.' To which I'd have to ask again, then where is the crying for justice for this bad but not bad enough to do what was done man and his murdered sons?
Nowhere, non -existing. Certainly not you or anyone here, why , such an illogical death grip clinging to a Big Headed Puppet Parade Placard (BUSH LIED!) would be beneath anyone of reasonable intelligence.
Especially in the face of his pending trial before the world.

Is English your first language?

 

[edward]

The spinning troll spins on, and on and on.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The spinning troll spins on, and on and on.

The Energizer Troll!?:zzz:

 

[Psi 5]

...
To sum-up:
"When Clinton lied, no one died" - is factually true, but logically flawed and pointless and therefore just mindless, useless rhetoric.
...

It is neither logically flawed nor pointless nor mindless rhetoric unless you are a mindless republican (which is all of them).

The logic is that the republicans tried to impeach Clinton for lying about sex, a point you conveniently don't mention. The logic is that Bush's lies have killed and maimed thousands of Americans and he is not being impeached. If you can't see the difference you are blind.

As to the rest of your statement, yes I agree Clinton is responsible for many deaths. Inaction during his presidency is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi's but it isn't clear he could have stopped it. As for his actions elsewhere, many presidents have done similar things with varying degrees of success but to compare that to Iraq is ludicrous.

 

[Miles Millbach]

I sat here and read the entire thread. I had to get to the very end to find some real bright thinking. Thank you Art and especially you Zlex. What I don't understand is why you even keep trying to talk sense with most of these dingbats.

I only have to look at the mass graves being dug up in Iraq and I no longer care what the reasons are. I don't care if the people are colored or pray to a different God. I see a reason for action.

There is a saying that I am sure most of you have heard many times. I have to use it often nowadays:

War never solved anything except ending slavery, facism, communism etc.etc.etc.

Why do we have to win the election over and over and over?

Miles

 

[Zlex]

Is English your first language?

Is English your first language?

Nice Ad Hom; I'll explain it again.

In total, the intelligence assessment of the current administration was, this guy who nobody believes was a saint and his band of henchmen 'needs removed.' (How is that for an expression? My wife uses that all the time.)

At some point, we all have to judge, was the man and his cronies rightly deposed, or not, and if not, on what basis could we ever possibly maintain that he should not be reinstated?

We could, after all, pull a Spain, throw an election, and disavow the previous administrations blunder in Iraq, if that is what it is judged to be. Spain, clearly, is under no burden of 'credibillity' that lasts longer than an admionistration; is our democracy any different?

So, in that case, what would possibly stop the new administration from actively advocating the reinstatement of the wrongly deposed Saddam&Co, especially if they attained office by screaming at the top of their lungs that he was wrongly deposed by the earlier adminsitration?

And, in fact, what would it say if they did not advocate that outcome, and instead enjoyed the benefits of the outcome, while simultaneously decrying the actions of those that brought about the outcome?

I know what it says to me.

We all agree he was a bad, bad man, So, the question is:

A] The man was 'bad,' but he did nothing sufficeint to be worthy of being deposed, he was therefore wrongly deposed, the action to depose him was wrong, he should therefore be reinstated.

B] The man was 'bad', and he did something sufficient to be worthy of being deposed, he was therefore rightly deposed, the action to depose him was right, he should therefore not be reinstated.

Bring on the shades of grey.

As in:

C] The man was 'bad,' as are we all. He may have done things sufficient to be worthy of being deposed, but he should not have been deposed, the action to depose him should not have been undertaken, he was only kinda sort of rightly deposed in the sense that nobody is too broken up about it now and will/can live with the achieved outcome, even though it is whithin their power to correct it, but the action to depose him was definitely wrong, based on lies, flawed, and costly, with no perceivable net benefit to the ongoing dinners at the Four Seasons, endlessly nuanced and held over the distant sound of questionable screaming, even though we're not going to lift a finger to correct that wrong as we continue our comfortably nuanced debates...

... because it is politically expediant to claim in this not a logic bound engineering problem nuanced anything goes world that this is a reasonaby consistant set of beliefs to cling to.

Or at least, in a world where math/logic literacy it as an appalingly dreadful low, will pass.

If only I could turn off that logic circuit when perusing these boards, I could speak the speak and drink the KoolAid. Alas, it comes hardwired.

 

[The Smoking Man]

If only I could turn off that logic circuit when perusing these boards, I could speak the speak and drink the KoolAid. Alas, it comes hardwired.

I prefer Freshie myself but that's not here nor there.

I see we almost have you down to a level of speaking real English now.

You also seem to be almost reading posts too. Wow ... This is a breakthrough.

The problem you have when drinking your Koolaid is that you fail to go back far enough. You see an attack on your sainted Bush and think that well, we have to put this off onto someone else so he looks better.

Who've we got ... Oh, Yeah ... Clinton.

Now there are one or two merrits to this rout of attack but the disadvantage is that it doesn't stop there. Once you broach history as a point of attack ... ALL history becomes valid ... including the fact that the 'Nasty man' was shown greeting Rumsfeld 2 weeks after he gassed the Kurds and they explained away this 'genocide'. This was then followed by assistance in targetting the Iranians during their war using satellite intel.

Yes, the very people you seek to exonerate by attacking the Clinton regime where present in the previous regime and set the ball rolling that led up to the current events.

Many of us here are outsiders and as such don't give a monkey's who is in power as far as your political infighting. We therefore look at relationships between the USA and external governments not in blocks of 'republican time' or 'Democrat time' we look at chains of cause and effect without the blinders of political affiliation.

If you want the 'god's honest truth' I have made too much to be considered a 'liberal' for about 3 decades now.

Now, while you tend to talk in terms of 'Koolade', I talk in terms of 'blood' spilled.

Both Saddam and the USA are responsible for 'Mass graves' and innocent lives lost.

Iran wants Saddam tried outside of the country in an international court so they can have the USA stand beside Saddam for their role in what the current Iraqi government has already admitted to as an unjust war started by Saddam against the sovereign nation of Iran.

Do you understand the implications of that? The newly freed nation of Iraq under American supervision has just dropped you into the role of co-conspirator of the person they are now trying for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In the eyes of the world ... especially the arab nations, they see you like Moussolini putting Hitler on trial for being a bad man.

This goes Waaaaaay back and shows a general lack of understanding on the part of most Americans about Middle Eastern affairs.

To you it is party politics.

To them it was wave after wave of westerners meddling in their business and putting into place the very regimes you deplore.

Iran itself was a democracy in the early 1950's for example and when the country nationalized the oil industry, westerners toppled the government and put a dictator in power. THAT is the hipocracy they see with every turn since.

The rest of the world admires Clinton actually for what he DID keep in his pants and what most administrations have flaunted and used to bring about the wars you now fight.

 

[SOS2008]

I sat here and read the entire thread. I had to get to the very end to find some real bright thinking. Thank you Art and especially you Zlex. What I don't understand is why you even keep trying to talk sense with most of these dingbats.
I only have to look at the mass graves being dug up in Iraq and I no longer care what the reasons are. I don't care if the people are colored or pray to a different God. I see a reason for action.
There is a saying that I am sure most of you have heard many times. I have to use it often nowadays:
War never solved anything except ending slavery, facism, communism etc.etc.etc.
Why do we have to win the election over and over and over?
Miles

I too have read through this entire thread, and all the many threads before this, discussing what the U.S. role in the world is, and should be. It appears you are a new member (welcome), but we have reviewed international law, sovereignty of nations, recent U.S. history and foreign policy (e.g. in regard to brutal dictatorships), etc. Is the U.S. role to be police of the world? We have also reviewed the premise of the ends justifying the means, whether deception, or torture, etc. What gives the U.S. government that right—just military might? Does that mean neocon concepts such as preemptive first strike, regime change, and etc. should be our foreign policy, and just how moral is this (we know it is contrary to international law and/or treaties)? I present this to you: War often ends in slavery, fascism, communism etc, etc., not to mention all the waste and suffering in the process.

In regard to posts in this thread, intelligence, writing skills, etc. are attributes, but quotes with links to reliable sources are the expectation in an academic forum such as PF. It is not a venue for soapbox speeches, and if people want to blog, I believe there is a section for that now. Also I sensed some rhetoric of hate hypocrisy in one of the posts you praise (#93), and the earlier post (#92) often veers into an OT rant. As for your other remarks about “dingbats,” I posted this earlier in the thread on High Crimes and Treason:

…I suspect you are attempting to reason with those who continue to defend Bush and his administration. The hard core Bush supporters …minds are closed; you can present all the evidence per logic of the scientific method and they will not believe—they hate academia and prefer simple black and white answers to things no matter how illogical.

I should add to that emotion rather than reason.

 

[Manchot]

We all agree he was a bad, bad man, So, the question is:

A] The man was 'bad,' but he did nothing sufficeint to be worthy of being deposed, he was therefore wrongly deposed, the action to depose him was wrong, he should therefore be reinstated.

B] The man was 'bad', and he did something sufficient to be worthy of being deposed, he was therefore rightly deposed, the action to depose him was right, he should therefore not be reinstated.

Bring on the shades of grey.

As in:

C] The man was 'bad,' as are we all. He may have done things sufficient to be worthy of being deposed, but he should not have been deposed, the action to depose him should not have been undertaken, he was only kinda sort of rightly deposed in the sense that nobody is too broken up about it now and will/can live with the achieved outcome, even though it is whithin their power to correct it, but the action to depose him was definitely wrong, based on lies, flawed, and costly, with no perceivable net benefit to the ongoing dinners at the Four Seasons, endlessly nuanced and held over the distant sound of questionable screaming, even though we're not going to lift a finger to correct that wrong as we continue our comfortably nuanced debates...

... because it is politically expediant to claim in this not a logic bound engineering problem nuanced anything goes world that this is a reasonaby consistant set of beliefs to cling to.

D. Saddam was a bad man, and probably needed to be deposed. However, he was not so bad that American citizens needed to immediately take on the burden of deposing him.

The way you spin it, it's a question of whether Saddam was bad enough to be deposed. It's not. It's a question of whether it is worth it from an American standpoint. Are you forgetting that we're the ones footing the bill for this war (both financially and in terms of human cost)?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Manchot, America is not the only country fighting this war and it's not the only country paying for it. However, American companies are the ones most benefiting.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Wow... that suggestion went further afield than I thought it would.

As for links in regard to Rwanda...

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

If you accept the source as credible you should see that Clinton was well aware of what was going on. There is virtually no way that he could have not known unless he like Bush likes to take off on vacation and not pay attention to the news. As was already quoted Clinton says (four years later)...

"All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror,"

How is that? It was being broadcast daily on television news.

When about 500,000 had been slaughtered the US was asked for troop transports which were delayed because the US was haggling over the pricetag with the UN.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

Clinton was also apparently worried enough about the situation even in the beginning to be sure all american citizens were lifted out of the area while refusing to send aid to the natives themselves.
Later on the US would airdrop food and supplies but refused when asked to make the drops lower to the ground to avoid problems.
In that same speech four years after the genocide Clinton said...

"Genocide can occur anywhere. It is not an African phenomenon. We must have global vigilance. And never again must we be shy in the face of the evidence,"

When he had in fact signed PDD (Presidential Decision Directive) 25 which specifically aimed to limit US military involvment in such matters a month after the genocide began.

If you read through the information about what happened it is not too difficult to see that the admin in the white house at that time had no desire to be involved. The US participated in the game of hot potato just like very one else. Even if Clinton wants to say that it was a tragic mistake it was definitely a mistake made very deliberately.

 

[SOS2008]

Recently I watched interviews with former president Carter, and last night with John McCain.

Carter made the significant point that certain individuals who were in the Bush Sr. administration wanted to go for regime change in Iraq (Gulf War time period), but it was squashed. These same individuals are now in the Bush Jr. administration, so obviously this was a desire well before 9-11 (i.e., premeditated). Nothing wrong with this per se...until they "fixed" the intelligence to invade--illegally.

As John McCain stated, Saddam had been an ongoing to threat in the region (having attacked Iran and Kuwait), and was thwarting UN inspections. If a case for war was to be made, these real problems should have been the reason. I (and many) have said that there should have been a final attempt to gain cooperation from Saddam, and if it failed there would have been more unanimous support for military action. This was not allowed, because the neocons feared that Saddam might have cooperated and they would lose their opportunity to invade.

The jest of the slogan is that Bush, et al, has committed more serious offenses. Getting back OT--to this slogan, members can post all the negative information about Clinton they please, but the case cannot be made that he was worse then Bush. It's just nonsense, and as always, it's a lame attempt at rationalizing what Bush has done and muddying the water.

 

[Zlex]

I prefer Freshie myself but that's not here nor there.
I see we almost have you down to a level of speaking real English now.
You also seem to be almost reading posts too. Wow ... This is a breakthrough.
The problem you have when drinking your Koolaid is that you fail to go back far enough. You see an attack on your sainted Bush and think that well, we have to put this off onto someone else so he looks better.
Who've we got ... Oh, Yeah ... Clinton.
Now there are one or two merrits to this rout of attack but the disadvantage is that it doesn't stop there. Once you broach history as a point of attack ... ALL history becomes valid ... including the fact that the 'Nasty man' was shown greeting Rumsfeld 2 weeks after he gassed the Kurds and they explained away this 'genocide'. This was then followed by assistance in targetting the Iranians during their war using satellite intel.
Yes, the very people you seek to exonerate by attacking the Clinton regime where present in the previous regime and set the ball rolling that led up to the current events.
Many of us here are outsiders and as such don't give a monkey's who is in power as far as your political infighting. We therefore look at relationships between the USA and external governments not in blocks of 'republican time' or 'Democrat time' we look at chains of cause and effect without the blinders of political affiliation.
If you want the 'god's honest truth' I have made too much to be considered a 'liberal' for about 3 decades now.
Now, while you tend to talk in terms of 'Koolade', I talk in terms of 'blood' spilled.
Both Saddam and the USA are responsible for 'Mass graves' and innocent lives lost.
Iran wants Saddam tried outside of the country in an international court so they can have the USA stand beside Saddam for their role in what the current Iraqi government has already admitted to as an unjust war started by Saddam against the sovereign nation of Iran.
Do you understand the implications of that? The newly freed nation of Iraq under American supervision has just dropped you into the role of co-conspirator of the person they are now trying for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In the eyes of the world ... especially the arab nations, they see you like Moussolini putting Hitler on trial for being a bad man.
This goes Waaaaaay back and shows a general lack of understanding on the part of most Americans about Middle Eastern affairs.
To you it is party politics.
To them it was wave after wave of westerners meddling in their business and putting into place the very regimes you deplore.
Iran itself was a democracy in the early 1950's for example and when the country nationalized the oil industry, westerners toppled the government and put a dictator in power. THAT is the hipocracy they see with every turn since.
The rest of the world admires Clinton actually for what he DID keep in his pants and what most administrations have flaunted and used to bring about the wars you now fight.

I apologize for this soapbox debate.

But I don't begin to concede that as 'certain.'

IMHO, Endlessly "doing nothing" -- in the face of endless challenges to 'do something' -- is exactly, precisely what led to the accelerated build up of hostilities in the 90s.

In fact, making a great, global political show of "doing nothing" -- traveling far over the horizon, dressed up in camo, complete with blue berets and flags flying--for the express purpose of 'doing nothing' in the face of challenges from megapolitical thugs-- in Somalia, in Rwanda, in -- fill in the blank, whenever and wherever a random thug challenged the laughable concept of a 'world community' sans effective sheriff-- was a process that accelerated the growing chaos in the world, the chaos that finally landed on our doorstep on 9/11 like at no other time in our history.

America, you're our star spangled *****, now prove otherwise or shut up and take it. We don't believe you've got the spine to adequately defend yourself. We don't believe you've got the spine to stick up for your 'friends' , your allies, your principles, your stranglehold on the direction that the world and its predominant political movements are taking. You make great pouty gestures -- "Project Hope" in Somalia, and then run screaming with a great, cowardly 'never mind, not if some random thug is going to contest the issue; when that happens, Project Hope is demonstrated to be Project Hopeless.' Osama Bin Laden was not a passive observer of that lesson; he was front and center in Mogadishu.

America, you as 'leader' of the cowardly Western modernity that rewrote the map led the way in Rwanda just 3 months later, demonstrating that even when the West has already made the effort to deploy itslef over the horizon in the name of 'justice' -- even when it is already on the ground in 'not sufficiently in our national interests' Rwanda -- when the effort extends itself beyond 'gesture politics,' you fold up like spineless, cowardly bastards and run back to your imagined safe havens to sip your Capuccinos and pose around the crab spread, deluding yourselves and the rest of the comfortable world with your tributes to The Greatest Generation about 'never again.'

America made the art of leading the Western world to 'do nothing' a high art. We busted a gut only to give every appearance of doing everything possible short of actually doing anything, and it fooled only us, as we convinced ourselves that was all that was necessary; meanwhile, the hardasses of the world are demanding more than gestures, more than poses, more than slogans, more than Madison Ave PR campaigns.

In Iraq, when we covertly encouraged the Kurds to rebel, with promises that 'we'd have their back,' in 1996 we 'did nothing' as those very folks were 'rolled up' (euphemism for murdered), even as our NoFlyZones were 'maintained' from above the events. We took pictures from $30M fighter jets, then lied to ourselves that such a cowardly national act was good policy. We passed on a bill, and like all deferred bills, the final bill ended up much higher, because the **** fighters who are fighting us now are totally convinced that we are the same gutless, empty nation that so recently did THAT to Iraq.

"Doing nothing" -- again -- in the face of Saddam's defiance of the UN as symbol of the 'world community' -- was not clearly something that was going to be without endless and growing consequences. To believe so is to count on the limits of the depths of contempt that those that despise us can generate from our behaviour.

 

[Anttech]

Y--a--w--n[/size]

edit: why bother appoligising for doing something before then going on to it? This isn't hyde park you know, athough you do seem to think PF is a toilet

 

[Skyhunter]

I apologize for this soapbox debate.

Yet you continue to make claims and accustaions based on your opinion without sources. How do you expect anyone to believe a word you write, when it is all vitriolic opinion.

 

[Zlex]

Yet you continue to make claims and accustaions based on your opinion without sources. How do you expect anyone to believe a word you write, when it is all vitriolic opinion.

Well, what should I source exactly. I would think the last few years of history would be common knowledge.

Should I get out my son's Grade 10 history textbook?

Although, I do find it odd that only I am accused of having a vitrolic opinion based on nothing when I replied to post that also contained no sources.


EDIT:

Looking back though this entire 8 pages of posting I counted 9 outside sources. 5 of which I provided to back up my previous opinions. And I am accused of being vitrolic as opposed to all others.

Do you know why?

Neither do I.

I guess the best I ever get on this is rope-a-dope like that. It is as good as it ever gets. It is, the actual cream of the opposing point of view crop.

 

[Informal Logic]

IMHO, Endlessly "doing nothing" -- in the face of endless challenges to 'do something' -- is exactly, precisely what led to the accelerated build up of hostilities in the 90s.

..."Doing nothing" -- again -- in the face of Saddam's defiance of the UN as symbol of the 'world community' -- was not clearly something that was going to be without endless and growing consequences. To believe so is to count on the limits of the depths of contempt that those that despise us can generate from our behaviour.

Saddam was being contained, and due process was underway. Defiance of the UN is not a ‘clear and present danger’ threat to American security. We WERE doing something, and behaving consistent with our supposed policy of war as a last resort.

Just to reiterate points made by several members above – First is that of US foreign policy, for example in reference to dictators, specifically “bad” dictators (assuming there are any other kind). I also caught the interview with McCain yesterday evening, and he said Saddam was an exception. I disagree, and say this is BS, because there have been and always will be “bad” leaders in the world, and having a ‘policy’ means having consensus on when, how and why the US will act. The most glaring reason why McCain’s statement is BS is that the US has not only supported many such dictators, but that the US previously supported Saddam himself. A second point made above about foreign policy is reference to the Bush Doctrine (crikey). Is preemption (first strike) an acceptable policy? What about regime change? At this time both are illegal according to international law, and most people view it as immoral. Bushies will never stick to discussions on these larger, basic matters.

How can there be credible discourse about the invasion of Iraq without addressing these things first? Then we might move to discussions of the ends justifying the means. McCain also spoke to the matter of torture. He stated that terrorists do not and should not have the same rights as an American citizen, but should be treated according to human rights guidelines that all nations are expected to adhere to. I agree with this, however, deception is not acceptable, not ever. It would seem the majority of Americans agree, and are disgusted that they were misled, and certainly members of Congress. You Bushies out there — There is no excuse for this, so stop trying to make excuses.

 

[Informal Logic]

One, I did not mention morality. Though dictionary definitions may not exactly argee with me I consider "morals" to be predominantly faith based and "ethics" to be based purely on logic.
Secondly, the law, and hence legality, is based on "ethics" or rather logical conclusions about the proper manner by which to interact in an orderly and functional society. Or at least it should be.
The day people get a clue world peace should ensue.
Hence my statement including the words "common practice".
I bring this up in response to those that say the statement is about lies and not about deaths. The matter of deaths is obviously implied.
And just to be clear I am not implying that Clinton was ever responsable for any deaths in this statement.
Largely irrelevant. If someone subordinate to my authority were to make sexual advances towards me and we had consentual "sexual relations" I would still be dismissed from my position. Again I see no reason why this should differ with regard to the president especially considering that his position is of vastly greater importance than mine and as such should demand a higher standard of professionalism.
Considering the basis for impeachment, how else would you go about dimissing the president of the United States of America for misconduct? Would you just hand him his walking papers and tell him to clear out of the oval office?

My apologies—I only just happen to see this post. By your reasoning, the president should have to abide by your company dress code too, right? The difference is private sector or civil matters versus 'high crimes and misdemeanors." I really do not want to dwell on this though because to me it is a bit menial in view of the seriousness of the current investigation.

 

[Skyhunter]

I apologize for this soapbox debate.
But I don't begin to concede that as 'certain.'
IMHO, Endlessly "doing nothing" -- in the face of endless challenges to 'do something' -- is exactly, precisely what led to the accelerated build up of hostilities in the 90s.
In fact, making a great, global political show of "doing nothing" -- traveling far over the horizon, dressed up in camo, complete with blue berets and flags flying--for the express purpose of 'doing nothing' in the face of challenges from megapolitical thugs-- in Somalia, in Rwanda, in -- fill in the blank, whenever and wherever a random thug challenged the laughable concept of a 'world community' sans effective sheriff-- was a process that accelerated the growing chaos in the world, the chaos that finally landed on our doorstep on 9/11 like at no other time in our history.
America, you're our star spangled *****, now prove otherwise or shut up and take it. We don't believe you've got the spine to adequately defend yourself. We don't believe you've got the spine to stick up for your 'friends' , your allies, your principles, your stranglehold on the direction that the world and its predominant political movements are taking. You make great pouty gestures -- "Project Hope" in Somalia, and then run screaming with a great, cowardly 'never mind, not if some random thug is going to contest the issue; when that happens, Project Hope is demonstrated to be Project Hopeless.' Osama Bin Laden was not a passive observer of that lesson; he was front and center in Mogadishu.
America, you as 'leader' of the cowardly Western modernity that rewrote the map led the way in Rwanda just 3 months later, demonstrating that even when the West has already made the effort to deploy itslef over the horizon in the name of 'justice' -- even when it is already on the ground in 'not sufficiently in our national interests' Rwanda -- when the effort extends itself beyond 'gesture politics,' you fold up like spineless, cowardly bastards and run back to your imagined safe havens to sip your Capuccinos and pose around the crab spread, deluding yourselves and the rest of the comfortable world with your tributes to The Greatest Generation about 'never again.'
America made the art of leading the Western world to 'do nothing' a high art. We busted a gut only to give every appearance of doing everything possible short of actually doing anything, and it fooled only us, as we convinced ourselves that was all that was necessary; meanwhile, the hardasses of the world are demanding more than gestures, more than poses, more than slogans, more than Madison Ave PR campaigns.
In Iraq, when we covertly encouraged the Kurds to rebel, with promises that 'we'd have their back,' in 1996 we 'did nothing' as those very folks were 'rolled up' (euphemism for murdered), even as our NoFlyZones were 'maintained' from above the events. We took pictures from $30M fighter jets, then lied to ourselves that such a cowardly national act was good policy. We passed on a bill, and like all deferred bills, the final bill ended up much higher, because the **** fighters who are fighting us now are totally convinced that we are the same gutless, empty nation that so recently did THAT to Iraq.
"Doing nothing" -- again -- in the face of Saddam's defiance of the UN as symbol of the 'world community' -- was not clearly something that was going to be without endless and growing consequences. To believe so is to count on the limits of the depths of contempt that those that despise us can generate from our behaviour.

This entire post is your opinion. This is not an op-ed forum, it is one for discussion.

I get your point, you hate Clinton and think America should kick-ass.

Were you ever in combat or are you just another chicken-hawk like the bulk of the administration and neo-cons in general?

How many of your kids are putting their life on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Even if I agreed with all of your reasoning, I would still have to say that this administration has totally bungled the execution of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are more terrorists now than there were in 2001. Our allies don't trust us with intelligence because we outed our own intelligence community. And we are torturing suspects.

I guess it just feels good to dump on Clinton since Bush is such a dismal failure.

 

[edward]

Well, what should I source exactly. I would think the last few years of history would be common knowledge.

Please source exactly why if in your opinion the war was necessary, The Bush administration had to totally distort the truth about WMD to the American people.
The last few years of history have been spun like a top. Were there WMD? no. Were the American people led to believe that there were WMD based on unsubstantiated and forged information? yes.

Should I get out my son's Grade 10 history textbook?

YES And please read it. Be sure not to trip over the spinning pages.

Although, I do find it odd that only I am accused of having a vitrolic opinion based on nothing when I replied to post that also contained no sources.

The posts you replied to that contained no sources were using the sources posted by others.

Looking back though this entire 8 pages of posting I counted 9 outside sources. 5 of which I provided to back up my previous opinions. And I am accused of being vitrolic as opposed to all others.
Do you know why?

Perhaps because your sources would substantiate one sentence and then you would return to your own vitriolic militaristic never ending opinion.

I guess the best I ever get on this is rope-a-dope like that. It is as good as it ever gets. It is, the actual cream of the opposing point of view crop.

Again this is your opinion only, but yet a sly way of group ad hominem.