When Clinton lied, no one died

  • #151
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Zlex said:
You have a point, how can we shape the world into what's 'right'. It is absolutely true that we can't clean up every ****fight in the world, but, and this is just my opinion, the more often we try, the less often we'll have to angst over whether to try or not. In a world where those who can are seen as never doing, the worst among us act with impunity.
Neocons believe they can clean up every “hot spot” in the world—some argue one at a time. That is not so much my issue as when, why and how. Is U.S. intervention that of shaping the world? I don’t see this as one in the same, or necessarily the goal to pursue (rather presumptuous, actually). And assuming we can come to some consensus on a definition of what is ‘right’ – according to our own values, such as abiding by laws, treaties, human rights guidelines, respect for sovereignty, etc., we should then be consistent. First, arguments of “how bad is bad” can only be determined by evaluating all of the world and history—not just one instance. Second, the invasion of Iraq was done in a way that is not in accordance with our values. Yes, we have responsibilities, but it matters when, why and how we “step up to the plate” and we should have a clear, sensible policy to follow when we do it.

Zlex said:
It is a much different world with even a hated self-righteous bully who might try then one with a merely despised/scorned and still hated with contempt coward who won't. Unless, of course, you believe that the US was universally loved 3 years ago, pre 9/11, pre-Afghanistan, pre Iraq, pre whatever Bush decides is next, and the world was at peace. IMO, we weren't, we aren't and in part, it was our inactivity and cowardliness in the face of direct and obvious confrontation which fed the contempt of those that today hate us, and the complicity of those that also hate us.
True, the U.S. had already meddled and mucked enough to cause disdain in the world, but the world was with us after 9-11, and the world would still be with us if we had remained focused on terrorism. Americans can bad mouth our allies all they want, but a unilateral approach to the “hot spots” of the world is a path to failure. I advise them to use diplomacy in gaining financial and military assistance in addressing world problems.

Zlex said:
It's his [Bush’s] decision for as long as we use our freedoms to give him that office. He is the only one with full access to the necessary resources, and it is his decision to make, based on those resources
FYI, we believe in balance of power in the U.S., and the Executive Branch is not empowered to do as it pleases. The Legislative Branch is pulling in the reigns at this moment to prevent further abuses.

edward said:
This only proves that the Bush administration's WMD disinformation propaganda worked. THERE WERE NO WMD.
And of course it would probably be appropriate to post a list of Republicans who supported the resolution too.

mathwonk said:
i think the wise motto: "never try to teach a pig to sing", should suffice to advise everyone to stay out of this discussion.
No harm in testing to see if it is a pig first.
 
Last edited:
  • #152
kat
26
0
edward said:
This only proves that the Bush administration's WMD disinformation propaganda worked. THERE WERE NO WMD.
ignoring that your statement would be impossible for you to prove and is factually incorrect...let's just question who's disinformation propaganda it was during the two terms prior to Bush's when the Dem's under the Clinton Admin were making similar declarations.
 
  • #153
kat
26
0
SOS2008 said:
And of course it would probably be appropriate to post a list of Republicans who supported the resolution too.
All but one republican senator supported..and over half of the Dems.
 
  • #154
67
165
kat said:
ignoring that your statement would be impossible for you to prove and is factually incorrect
No my statement is right on the money, if the Dems voted for the war it was only because they believed the disinformation as did millions of others. If there had been no erroneous WMD proganda there would have been no vote. Please prove otherwise.


let's just question who's disinformation propaganda it was during the two terms prior to Bush's when the Dem's under the Clinton Admin were making similar declarations.
You are exactly wrong. In regards to Iraq whatever happened under Clinton is not being investigated and never was investigted because there was nothing to investigate. The only thing an eight year witch hunt came up with was a BJ.

Clinton didn't start a war, but he did blow the hell out of things in Iraq when Saddam ordered the inspectors to leave. The result was that the inspectors returned. Or did you convenientlly forget that? And blaiming Clinton for Bushes mistakes is getting old. You are just going to have to try to outgrow that.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #155
kat
26
0
edward said:
No my statement is right on the money
No..your statement was factually incorrect.
THERE WERE NO WMD
from the often used source Wikipedia...I quote:
On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been "stored improperly", and thus the gas was "ineffective" as a useful chemical agent. Officials from the Defense Department commented that they were not certain if use was to be made of the device as a bomb.[29]

On May 15, 2004 a 155 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb. The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dialated pupils).[30] [31] On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance (in the form of its two unmixed precursor chemicals prior to the aforementioned explosion that had not effectively mixed them). [32].

Factually you are incorrect.


You are exactly wrong. In regards to Iraq whatever happened under Clinton is not being investigated and never was investigted because there was nothing to investigate. The only thing an eight year witch hunt came up with was a BJ.
Clinton didn't start a war, but he did blow the hell out of things in Iraq when Saddam ordered the inspectors to leave. The result was that the inspectors returned. Or did you convenientlly forget that? And blaiming Clinton for Bushes mistakes is getting old. You are just going to have to try to outgrow that.:rolleyes:
Blah Blah Blah..again I'll ask... Who's WMD propoganda was it prior to the Bush administrations? WMD did not suddenly appear upon the horizon post Bush. Do I really need to dig out Clinton Admin and Democratic members of Congress' quotes on WMD prior to Bush?
 
Last edited:
  • #156
Whether or not Saddam had WMDs years and years ago and whether or not anyone thought he had them is irrelevant. People did not vote to go war on the grounds that he used to have them or on old 'evidence' that he might have had them, but on the grounds that he had them now and posed a 'clear and present danger' to the United States. That case was compiled by Bush and Blair by 'information' old and new and wrong.

Also a shell of mustard gas and a shell of sarin will not cause mass destruction, so are not WMDs.
 
  • #157
Informal Logic
After Bush's Veterans Day speech you would think he would realize he is only digging a deeper hole by going on the offensive blaming Kerry or Clinton or the democrats. He would do much better in the polls if he would admit to his own mistakes, suggest solutions, and stop the negative sale. But he and Rummy are still at it. It makes me laugh to watch the self destruction.

In reference to the democrats and support for the resolution, go back and look at the news when this was passed. There was tremendous debate, and most of the democrats who did vote for it made statements that show they were very concerned about WMD, in particular WMD being sold to terrorists, and many still expected war to be a last resort. They did not vote for the resolution in support of war mongering.
 
  • #158
67
165
kat said:
No..your statement was factually incorrect.
from the often used source Wikipedia...I quote:
On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation.


Judith Miller was a part of MET alpha, the (survey group?) you are referring to. All of her reports were later debunked. All that was ever found were a few old empty shells from the previous war. All had been emptied tagged and sealed in Bunkers by the UN. During the 2003 invasion the U.S. forces found the bunkers but did not have the manpower to secure them, and the munitions were stolen. The explosives inside the shells were then used to make IED's. Of course you know that don't you?:rolleyes:

There was never anything found that was significant and certainly nothing was ever found that met the "Grave and gathering danger" bull crap that was fed to the American people.

Blah Blah Blah..again I'll ask... Who's WMD propoganda was it prior to the Bush administrations? WMD did not suddenly appear upon the horizon post Bush. Do I really need to dig out Clinton Admin and Democratic members of Congress' quotes on WMD prior to Bush?
There were of course WMD from the previous era and they were destroyed or emptied. Of course there is always that occasional stray shell.

The shell mentioned below was from WWll and found in the good old USA. I suppose that was Clinton's fault too?:tongue2:

A check in 2002 unearthed an old artillery shell containing the chemical phosgene, a choking agent, in a field near a family's home in Etowah County.
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050809/site.shtml [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #159
Informal Logic
Sorry, I just saw this.

Zlex said:
We might as well ask why Bush 41 didn't pursue Saddam to Baghdad; some of the answers are the same. Not all, but some.
Because there was no leader in exile, or revolution thereof in Iraq, there was no clear replacement for Saddam nor a good plan for stability after removing him. The ‘shock and awe’ bombing that resulted in death of family members worked well on Qaddafi of Libya. For the most part Saddam had been stripped of his military strength during the Gulf War, and as long as he could be contained with inspections it was considered best to stay the course. Then if Saddam had committed another act of aggression, regime change probably would have been reconsidered, though stability would still be a problem. But at least it would have been an international effort.
 
  • #160
40
1
Informal Logic said:
Sorry, I just saw this.
Because there was no leader in exile, or revolution thereof in Iraq, there was no clear replacement for Saddam nor a good plan for stability after removing him. The ‘shock and awe’ bombing that resulted in death of family members worked well on Qaddafi of Libya. For the most part Saddam had been stripped of his military strength during the Gulf War, and as long as he could be contained with inspections it was considered best to stay the course. Then if Saddam had committed another act of aggression, regime change probably would have been reconsidered, though stability would still be a problem. But at least it would have been an international effort.
Well, as outlined in a FrontLine biography a few months ago(?), Saddaam rope-a-doped Gulf War I. The West, as usual, could not believe that any sane person would fail to see the handwriting on that wall. An International Community crying its eyes out over the turkey shoot on the Road north to Basra out of Kuwait cried "enough is enough, Bush 41," and caving to both world opinion, wishful thinking, and the grasp of half a loaf already won without massive casualties, we left Iraq in thrall to these thugs. We hoped beyond hope that surely, somehow, Saddam would lose power now that he'd been slapped down so forcefully and so so completely. We hoped that for many reasons, including, because there was no plan of action in place to do anything other than what was factually accomplished, and no vaunted world consensus to do more than that; eject Saddam from Kuwait. Many back then sadly predicted, "We'll have to come back in ten years to finish this," and they were absolutely right.

And then, shamefully, victims of our own wishful thinking and optimism about the nature of thugs and what they are willing to ignore, we stood by while Saddaam quelled the very rebellion we merely wished for and secured his grip around the throat of Iraq, and continued to add to his growing pile of mass graves in the Iraqi desert, unimpeded.

Then follows a decade of total nonsense. UN inspectors being run around like fools, being told curious things like, "No, you can't come in here" while UN inspection leaders found themselves uttering other strange words like, "Get your hands off of my inspector," or else. Or else what? Or else precious little. Or else another UN Resolution, one day to approach a dozen and a half and endlessly counting.

And meanwhile, Saddam & Sons hold the nation and country of Iraq by the throat, to use as they saw fit, which now, we have recently come to learn, included such things as hosting the training of Mohammed Atta by Abu Nidal, to which the San Francisco spin machine responds with the curiously rehashed, "No conclusive proof they met in Prague."

And Abu Nidal...isn't he the guy who

2002 August: Dies in Baghdad, Iraq under circumstances that quickly become questioned. Iraqi authorities claim that he had entered Iraq illegally, and when discovered by officials, he shot himself...
Source

four times in the head, in a curious case of suicide slash C.Y.I.A. after 9/11.

All while we merely pretended that we were not at war, back during the 90's pizza party. As chillingly detailed in that FrontLine special, Saddam had taken the measure of Clinton, 'because that is what thugs do,' and had found him eminently doable. Defy him, and he pitches a 30 minute fit of cruise missiles, followed by a resounding 'never mind' until the next opportunity for a total pose for the CNN cameras presents itself, thanks, Saddam, for helping with the pictures.

Presidents change. Elections come along, elections in which GWB cannot miraculously count on getting 99.99% of the vote while the world stands by, stunned. GWB got the magic stick for 4 years, and he wielded it to effect change in the M.E. We may not all like the way he actually did that, but we can't point to what was the status quo with any huge sense of longing, and neither can we point to any convincing Third Way. The path to that Third Way is convince the tribe, sieze the stick, and wield the power, and demonstrate the efficacy of renewing Clinton's legacy Third Way, the one that appeared for all intents and purposes for eight years to be chronically frozen with indecision and fear and ineffectiveness, but plenty of posturing and speeches to the international community, the one that did absolutely nothing to keep those mass graves from endlessly being dug in the Iraqi desert.
 
  • #161
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Zlex said:
...we left Iraq in thrall to these thugs. We hoped beyond hope that surely, somehow, Saddam would lose power now that he'd been slapped down so forcefully and so so completely.
Would of, could of, should of -- IMO we should have dealt with Saddam when he was rising to power per advise of CIA operatives at that time. I, like many feel we could have removed Saddam during the Gulf War with more support from the world. Certainly far more than with Dubya's misleading and mishandling. But more importantly was as you state, the hope that Saddam would lose power--enough that new leadership might rise from within. If we had removed him ourselves, what would result? Probably a lot of what we are dealing with now.

Zlex said:
Many back then sadly predicted, "We'll have to come back in ten years to finish this," and they were absolutely right.
Your opinion -- We had yet to know if/when.

Zlex said:
And then, shamefully, victims of our own wishful thinking and optimism about the nature of thugs and what they are willing to ignore, we stood by while Saddaam quelled the very rebellion we merely wished for and secured his grip around the throat of Iraq, and continued to add to his growing pile of mass graves in the Iraqi desert, unimpeded.
If indeed there had been a significant chance for rebellion, and we did not assist, then yes, shame on the U.S.

Zlex said:
Then follows a decade of total nonsense. UN inspectors being run around like fools, being told curious things like, "No, you can't come in here" while UN inspection leaders found themselves uttering other strange words like, "Get your hands off of my inspector," or else. Or else what? Or else precious little. Or else another UN Resolution, one day to approach a dozen and a half and endlessly counting. And meanwhile, Saddam & Sons hold the nation and country of Iraq by the throat, to use as they saw fit, which now, we have recently come to learn, included such things as hosting the training of Mohammed Atta by Abu Nidal, to which the San Francisco spin machine responds with the curiously rehashed, "No conclusive proof they met in Prague."
Once again, your opinion. But none of this qualifies for "how bad is bad" in comparison to activities around the world. So many brutal leaders, and many other countries far more involved in training of terrorists. Most importantly, none of this could be deemed as "clear and present danger" to U.S. national security.

Zlex said:
GWB got the magic stick for 4 years, and he wielded it to effect change in the M.E. We may not all like the way he actually did that, but we can't point to what was the status quo with any huge sense of longing, and neither can we point to any convincing Third Way.
Let me rephrase that to reality. We may not have liked various situations in the M.E., but Dubya's way was a huge mistake that made everything worse, not only in that region but throughout the world. That anyone believes there was anything positive about Bush and the invasion is mind-boggling.

Zlex said:
The path to that Third Way is convince the tribe, sieze the stick, and wield the power, and demonstrate the efficacy of renewing Clinton's legacy Third Way, the one that appeared for all intents and purposes for eight years to be chronically frozen with indecision and fear and ineffectiveness, but plenty of posturing and speeches to the international community, the one that did absolutely nothing to keep those mass graves from endlessly being dug in the Iraqi desert.
Where's my shovel…?
 
  • #162
40
1
If indeed there had been a significant chance for rebellion, and we did not assist, then yes, shame on the U.S.
We let the Iraqi people swing in the wind for 3 decades under Saddam. We backed him for a large part of that time. Then, when we got up the nerve to covertly inspire rebellion after kicking him out of Kuwait, after we bluster about establishing 'No Fly Zones" -- for what reason, nobody yet has an answer-- we proceed to fly around the skies in 30 million dollar fighter planes taking picutures of Saddam 'rolling up' the very rebels who thought we had their back, by the thousands and thousands. A cowardly, shameful, dispicable, and well buried 'act' by our government in our name, to be forgotten, except for a few honorable men, like Bob Kerrey, who have said screw the threat of jail, people have to know. And then, when he lets them know, publicly, in front of a huge audience, and his words are actually published...silence. Media coverage? Zilch; does not fit the agenda.

The phrase "cognitive dissonance" gets thrown around alot. That discomfort upon trying to process such events must be what causes us to be able to ignore what we've been doing to the Iraqis. Maybe ... they've forgotten it was the US who did that? Surely, we couldn't have established 'No Fly Zones' for all those many years ... for no reason at all.

Blank stare off into space, while we try to imagine what they were established to accomplish.

Here is the best I can come up with:

"Well, if Saddam is going to roll up the Kurds and Sh'ia, we don't want him doing so in either fixed or rotary wing aircracft, so as to not besmirch the coming 100 year anniversary of Orville and Wilber's flight."

Thousands murdered, covertly encouraged by us, and left to die while we watched safely from overhead in our $30M gesture politics jet fighters, doing nothing. What excuses that?
 
Last edited:
  • #163
40
1
Would of, could of, should of -- IMO we should have dealt with Saddam when he was rising to power per advise of CIA operatives at that time. I, like many feel we could have removed Saddam during the Gulf War with more support from the world. Certainly far more than with Dubya's misleading and mishandling. But more importantly was as you state, the hope that Saddam would lose power--enough that new leadership might rise from within. If we had removed him ourselves, what would result? Probably a lot of what we are dealing with now.

Probably. And ineed, now is unpleasant, and costly, and hard, and difficult, and gut wrenching. Unavoidable.

Now is, for the first time in a long time, finally, staying and passing judgement on what we believe is right, and what we believe is wrong, and choosing. And, in so choosing, backing up our choice if and when that is necessary. We either fight for our view of justice, or we succumb to the vision of those who will fight for theirs.

There used to be an endless argument whose primary purpose was to endlessly deny the need to ever choose; that path is vacuous, and wrong, and in the long run, much more costly than simply choosing.

It's not that hard to know what to choose; it's just that in the short term, it is harder to act than to not act. In the long term, our decades of putting off these hard choices have left a huge bill to pay.

It was wrong to leave Iraq in the hands of murdering thugs. It's wrong to let the future of Iraq be determined by kidnapping, murdering, terroristic thugs. It's right to back a peaceful, orderly process of assuming power in Iraq. The fact that there are a minority of ****fighters throwing gut wrenching ****, including, sending a hardly can be expected to be 'informed' six of seven year old girl out into the street to hurl explosives at a convoy, does not negate any of that. It merely makes it difficult and hard and costly and unpleasant and gut wrenching to stay and face the thugs that would do such things, in the name of anything on earth.

And, how telling that they chose a girl-child to dispose of in this fashion. That was not a 50-50 happenstance, not in that radical fundamentalist subset of that culture. I have no qualms at all about pointing at that aspect of that culture, as one example of many, and claiming, that is wrong, it is not an innocent matter of Vanilla/Chocolate/cultural diversity in the great rainbow of people making random choices, and it should not stand, even if force is required to squash it..

Oh, but we can't fix every wrong in the world, therefore... that is our license to endelssly fix none. That used to be the argument. That still is the argument. It is the argument that says, we should never fix any wrong in the world, ever, because ... we can't fix every one.

Or, there are "worse problems," and we are not fixing those, therefore, we should not fix these, or any.

Seriously, where is the holy consensus to fix those worse wrongs? Where was the holy consensus, prior to 9/11, that would have allowed us to eject the Taliban from control of Afghanistan? It is not funny, but it would be laughable to claim that, prior to 9/11, the world would have supported an effective war to remove the Taliban from running Club Terrorist in Afghanistan. It barely held its tongue when we did just that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The entire premise of the western world has been to project merely the appearance of doing something, as opposed to actually doing something, because projecting appearances is much less costly in terms of lives, in terms of resources, and in terms of votes...in the short term. In the long term, "gesture politics" is a disaster.

The generation before us did not send The Blue Man Group to perform street theatre to confront Hitler. Today's Jew haters cannot be confronted with painless gestures of condemnation.

How could one generation act with such clarity, and their children be infected with such total puddingheadedness?

There is not one answer. But, here is part of it; a lie that has been spoon fed to us since birth. "Violence is never the answer."

The source of that lie is a movement to render us unable to defend ourselves, and as well, to destroy ourselves. Our schools have been surrendered to that lie, our streets are bieng surrendered to that lie, and now the entire world is being surrendered to that lie. For a people that believe that 'violence is never the answer,' we have not made any inroads at all in reducing the amount of it raging around the world.

If there is one Iraqi left, pressing for a peaceful non-violent Iraq, ruled by law and not murdering thugs sending 7 year old girls out to hurl explosives at convoys, then even if 25 million Iraqis minus one are dancing in the street, cheering on the bloodshed, kidnapping Japenses woman and threatening to burn them alive, dragging corpses throught the sreets, lining up behind whatever Shiite cleric drew the knife across the throat first, then shame on us for leaving that one human being to be overrun by thug/animals.

I would make that argument all the way until that last one. But in fact, I don't think we're close to that situation in Iraq. In fact, I think we're much closer to the following:

A tiny minority of ****fighters moved to extreme violence in a country of 25 million who have been ruled by fear and violence and murder and mass graves and Saddam's Goon Guard for three decades, nervously whatching the CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS led cheerleaders for 'cut and run again' on their heretofore illegal satellite dishes, wondering if America is once again going to leave the Kurds and Shia swinging in the wind like we did as recently as 1996, complete with No FLy Zones to watch but don't touch.

We have no credibility with those 25 million; why on earth should we? They've seen us cut and run and leave Iraq to thugs before. They've seen us covertly egging them on, just to have us watch safely from 15,000 feet while knives were dragged across throats.

It is as if the combined media resources of the balance of the civilized world were focused on only one goal; a campaign to boost the morale of the ****fighters in Iraq, to cheer them on as they murder and kidnap and torture and send out 7 year old girls to hurl bombs at convoys. Hold on, we've almost convinced our leaders to cut and run again, if you just ramp up the ****fight just a little bit, you could yet turn this around and ... we'll cut and run again.

In the interest of 'peace,' where are the peace marchers condeming the ****fighters in Iraq? Where are the heartfelt calls to 'end the violence?' It is glaringly missing; the so called 'peace movement' is not about peace at all; it is about defeat of the US by those who believe they have to destroy the USA in order to save it. Cute line, indeed, our own religious fanatics live by this, fervently.

Press Kerrey on his disclosures of US covert activity in Iraq since 1991, the slaughter by Saddam in 1996 of the last of the Kurd and SHia still struggling to stand up to him at our urging, while we did nothing from 15,000 ft, the request in 1998 for additional covert action in Iraq, the price demanded by Kerrey and others, the public Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, declaring that it was official US policy to remove the Saddam regime from Iraq?

Or, does all that not somehow fit into the Center For AMerican Progress talking points, "Bush showed up in January 2001, suddenly intent on having the US oust Sadaam from Iraq come Hell or High Water, Clear Out Of The Blue Based on Lies Lies Lies?"
 
  • #164
67
165
ZLEX: another nice OP ED

Where was the holy consensus, prior to 9/11, that would have allowed us to eject the Taliban from control of Afghanistan? It is not funny, but it would be laughable to claim that, prior to 9/11, the world would have supported an effective war to remove the Taliban from running Club Terrorist in Afghanistan.
It was the USA who put the taliban into power in Afghanistan in the first place. Remember their little war with Russia?? For that matter Saddam's power was consolidated with help from the USA.

Or, does all that not somehow fit into the Center For AMerican Progress talking points, "Bush showed up in January 2001, suddenly intent on having the US oust Sadaam from Iraq come Hell or High Water, Clear Out Of The Blue Based on Lies Lies Lies?"
Actually the lies were made up a bit later.:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #165
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Zlex said:
We let the Iraqi people swing in the wind for 3 decades under Saddam.
Without the hyperbole, it was Bush Sr. who conducted the Gulf War, and who called on the Iraqi people to rebel. The dominant assessment of U.S. intelligence was neither the Shi’is in the south or the Kurds in the north had a chance at success. Certainly these two factions were not acting in unison. Historically the Kurds have wanted to secede, while the Shi’is were supported by Iran. So the perception was the Iraqi military was needed to assist in the overthrow of Saddam and to keep the country unified. But this wasn’t happening.

Zlex said:
Probably. And ineed, now is unpleasant, and costly, and hard, and difficult, and gut wrenching. Unavoidable.
Costly and gut wrenching yes, unavoidable no.

Zlex said:
Now is, for the first time in a long time, finally, staying and passing judgement on what we believe is right, and what we believe is wrong, and choosing. And, in so choosing, backing up our choice if and when that is necessary. We either fight for our view of justice, or we succumb to the vision of those who will fight for theirs. There used to be an endless argument whose primary purpose was to endlessly deny the need to ever choose; that path is vacuous, and wrong, and in the long run, much more costly than simply choosing.
I’ve been trying to talk about what is right and what is wrong, but you refuse to stick to the points of preemptive first strike, regime change, torture, types of arsenals, etc. You continue with a neocon rant about fighting for justice, but forget that America’s first priority is to fight for American freedom, and intervention in other sovereign countries without invitation (perhaps even cheers and flowers?) toward a common desire is injustice.

Zlex said:
It was wrong to leave Iraq in the hands of murdering thugs. It's wrong to let the future of Iraq be determined by kidnapping, murdering, terroristic thugs. It's right to back a peaceful, orderly process of assuming power in Iraq.

[<more dramatics>]

Oh, but we can't fix every wrong in the world, therefore... that is our license to endelssly fix none. That used to be the argument. That still is the argument. It is the argument that says, we should never fix any wrong in the world, ever, because ... we can't fix every one. Or, there are "worse problems," and we are not fixing those, therefore, we should not fix these, or any.
This is so typically hawkish—making false ‘either or,’ black and white claims that those who are anti-war want to “cut and run” or are cowards who turn away from the suffering of the world. Nonsense. Our resources of armed forces, tax dollars, etc. should be used with reason and clear purpose, and not wasted in impulsive spending sprees. And if you don’t mind, these resources belong to all Americans—not just some, or those of some other country (e.g., Israel) who presume they can decide how it should be (mis)used. It is the neocon hawks that would destroy our great country, by over extending our military, draining our coffers, placing us further and further in debt to other countries. The U.S. will not be defeated, and will stand strong against dishonesty, ineptitude, and selfish greed of the few.
 
  • #166
Art
Here's a well researched op/ed article detailing where, when and by who the lies were formulated which took the US to war in Iraq.

Following the advice of 'follow the money' it also shows who profited.
Probably not too surprisingly there is an extraordinary correlation between the two.

Bush Gang Swore Saddam Was Behind 9/11 In Lawsuit
Friday, 18 November 2005, 10:38 am
Opinion: Evelyn Pringle
Bush Gang Swore Saddam Was Behind 9/11 In Lawsuit
By Evelyn Pringle

Much to the dismay of President Bush, Americans can remember all on their own, without any coaching from Democrats, that in the run up to war in Iraq, it was top official from the administration who were making the claim that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden and that he was secretly involved to 9/11.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm
 
  • #167
40
1
Without the hyperbole, it was Bush Sr. who conducted the Gulf War, and who called on the Iraqi people to rebel. The dominant assessment of U.S. intelligence was neither the Shi’is in the south or the Kurds in the north had a chance at success. Certainly these two factions were not acting in unison. Historically the Kurds have wanted to secede, while the Shi’is were supported by Iran. So the perception was the Iraqi military was needed to assist in the overthrow of Saddam and to keep the country unified. But this wasn’t happening.
Hyperbole?

BOB KERREY: Anyway, this is all leading to, we had covert operations in place in Iraq starting in 1991. I suppose I could go to jail for disclosing that, for all I know. I don't know. But I was the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee, and I had to sign off on them. It isn't just that we had a bunch of guys over there, trained to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We were signing up people. There were Kurds in northern Iraq who believed us, who believed that we'd stick with them, that, "Oh, yeah, you can overthrow Saddam Hussein, and we're going to be right there with you, and we'll stick it out with you." And we didn't.

DICK GORDON: You're talking about after the war.

BOB KERREY: Nineteen ninety-six, both of the main Kurdish forces were rolled up and killed, and driven out of Iraq as a consequence of Saddam Hussein sending military forces up, even with our no-fly zones being maintained. There were a lot of Iraqis who died. A lot of them tried to come to the United States. We wouldn't let them come here. I just said at the time, 1998-- Now comes the administration again saying, "We want you to sign off on another covert operation. We're going to get him this time." And I said, "I'll sign off on it if you make your open policy the same as your closed policy. Don't sign people up to risk their lives if we're saying publicly we don't think it can happen, and we don't favor it publicly. That's when we wrote the act. On Halloween, 1998, that was the first time the United States' over policy and covert policy was identical. And that's the first time that we could honestly say, both in Washington DC and in Kirkuk or Mosul or wherever else you were trying to sign people up, that we were telling them the same thing.
JFKFoundation.

Bob Kerrey= RightWing shill.

JFK Library Foundation=RIghtWIngNut website, posting nonsense.

Er...my stream of concious sentences don't measure up.

Not to mention...er...several spelling mistakes.


Er...Bush Apologist!


Hey, let me join in the in-ter-net fun:

Impeach Bush!

We had covert operations in place continuously since 1991, aimed at overthrowing Saddam&Son's Republic of Fear.

In 1996, a covertly inspired Kurdish rebellion failed after the US cowardly did not follow through on its promise to back them up, even as we maintained our 'NoFlyZones' overhead and did nothing but take pictures.

In 1998, here comes the administration again, "We'll get him this time."

And the Senate demands "no more deception." Slick signs the ILA on October 31, 1998. Did he have to? No. He only had to do it as a quid pro quo. Apparently, the quid was worth the quo, because he signed.

OK, so here is where you and yours revert to Episode 6 of "Fireball XL-5" and start foaming on about "the Neocons."
 
Last edited:
  • #168
33
0
When Clinton lied, it was funny

Except for his wife.
I’m not following the flow of this thread but just visiting the Physics Forum after a long separation and want to add my view of this topic.
The real sadness is actually comparing a competent president Clinton (balanced budgets, shorter successful wars) with an incompetent Bush (record deficits every year, a war that will never end in our lifetimes with Islam).
This is the first U.S. war that I’ve been against, I’m an old war veteran myself and find the death of my fellow soldiers, innocent Iraqi’s, and future results of Bush’s incompetence with terrorists DISGUSTING. Bush is creating the U.S. and others into targets.
I voted for one Republican in my last senatorial election so please don’t consider my reply as a reply of a Democrat. I just a human that calls it the way I see it. I’m ashamed of the way Republicans put their party ahead of our troops and fellow Earth humans.
 
  • #169
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Zlex said:
Hyperbole?
JFKFoundation.
Bob Kerrey= RightWing shill.
JFK Library Foundation=RIghtWIngNut website, posting nonsense.
Er...my stream of concious sentences don't measure up.
Not to mention...er...several spelling mistakes.
Er...Bush Apologist!
Hey, let me join in the in-ter-net fun:
Impeach Bush!
We had covert operations in place continuously since 1991, aimed at overthrowing Saddam&Son's Republic of Fear.
In 1996, a covertly inspired Kurdish rebellion failed after the US cowardly did not follow through on its promise to back them up, even as we maintained our 'NoFlyZones' overhead and did nothing but take pictures.
In 1998, here comes the administration again, "We'll get him this time."
And the Senate demands "no more deception." Slick signs the ILA on October 31, 1998. Did he have to? No. He only had to do it as a quid pro quo. Apparently, the quid was worth the quo, because he signed.
OK, so here is where you and yours revert to Episode 6 of "Fireball XL-5" and start foaming on about "the Neocons."
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Kerrey, another Democrat Vietnam vet, and one of the few Dems on the 9-11 commission (which was restricted to existence of WMD and links to Al Qaeda, not whether the intel was manipulated), and the quote you provide appears to be in agreement with my post--that Bush Sr. called upon the Iraqis to rebel, and then decided not to back them (like JFK and the Bay of Pigs?). Is this supposed to be justification for making ever-larger mistakes as we go?
 
  • #170
Art
Rumsfeld: I didn't advocate Iraq invasion!

An interesting new twist.... sort of Bart like "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing" :biggrin:

Perhaps it was all just a big misunderstanding. What he actually said was "let's not invade Iraq" but this was misheard as "let's invade Iraq" and before you know it there's 150,000 troops on the ground. :rofl:

Rumsfeld: I didn't advocate Iraq invasion!

US administration resists pressure for withdrawal as political divide over Iraq heightens.

WASHINGTON - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday led administration resistance to mounting calls for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Facing a rising onslaught of public and political doubts over Iraq policy, Rumsfeld insisted in a number of television interviews that battlefield commanders would decide when the United States could start reducing troop numbers.

And speaking in Beijing, President George W. Bush said "leaving prematurely will have terrible consequences, for our own security and for the Iraqi people. And that's not going to happen so long as I'm the president."

There are about 159,000 US troops in Iraq ahead of the December 15 elections for a permanent government. But military officials say this will be reduced to about 138,000 after the election.

However, Rumsfeld seemed to distance himself from advocating the idea of invading Iraq.

He asserted Sunday that he did not press for the US-led invasion of Iraq, as public disaffection for the US military operation there reaches new highs.

"I didn't advocate invasion," Rumsfeld told ABC television, when asked if he would have advocated an invasion of Iraq if he had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found there.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/iraq/?id=15050 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #171
Skyhunter
Art said:
An interesting new twist.... sort of Bart like "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing" :biggrin:
Perhaps it was all just a big misunderstanding. What he actually said was "let's not invade Iraq" but this was misheard as "let's invade Iraq" and before you know it there's 150,000 troops on the ground. :rofl:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/iraq/?id=15050 [Broken]
I think this post belongs in "Republican lies used to trick the public "

:rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #172
1,029
1
I've never seen so many experts on such a complex subject as this. It's like watching movie critics giving thumbs up and down when they don't have a clue what it takes to make or act in a movie. Nothing wrong with discussing a topic you know little about, but the name calling and insulting remarks in this thread are a bit shameful for a forum devoted to science.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I just grow weary of the constant political debates from two extreme positions who are obviously biased and wouldn't change their minds no matter how much proof you showed them. These types almost always resort to insults and a total lack of substance. I haven't read this entire thread but from what I have read, agree with him or not, Zlex has handled the insults for better than I could have.
 
  • #173
67
165
Fliption said:
I don't mean to offend anyone, I just grow weary of the constant political debates from two extreme positions who are obviously biased and wouldn't change their minds no matter how much proof you showed them.
Political debates tend to do that to people.:wink:
 
  • #174
McGyver
Astronuc said:
BTW - I think Clinton should have resigned after that lie, but also for the fact that he engaged in an inappropriate activity with an employee and subordinate for which he felt compelled to lie. And I won't cut him any slack for the technicality regarding 'relations'. He's a grown man, and he knew what he was being asked (even if he was an idiot in this regard).
Any business executive would have been asked to step down (at least I would hope so) for such conduct. One just doesn't do that.
Agreed on the resigning part. Had Clinton just admitted to what he did, and said OK, it that requires that I resign I'll resign. But if I do - the Democratic party will hold the Republicans to the same standard of honor and trust. Gore then could have touted his and Clinton's successes with the economy, and he most likely would have beaten Bush/Cheney in 2000. Even if 911 still occurred as it did - Gore and the country would have gone into Afghanistan, but not Iraq. We would have had brief military exchanges with Iraq, and perhaps some inspectors. I think that Saddam's neighbors were increasingly disliking him more, made the West look more favorable - and perhaps over time, one or more mid-East nations might look to guidance from the West. I think it is a stretch to ask these strict Muslim nations to form a Democracy. Asking for baby steps is much more realistic. Plus, as long as they are mad at each other - the West looks good, with the exception of the corrupted "oil for food" program. And if we hadn't gone to war - we'd have the cooperation, time, and energy to sort through that maze of who done it's!
 

Related Threads on When Clinton lied, no one died

Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
72
Views
19K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
9K
Top