Clinton who in the neo-cons opinion is a lying, moral-less, failure of a leader is now thier backstop for President Bush....hmmm..what does that say?
Anyone else notice that the Neo Cons have been qouting Clinton a lot ?
- Thread starter tnitsuj
- Start date
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant
CkG
/partial libbie rant
CkG
I've noticed that when left-leaning members bring up Clinton in a 'Bush thread', or if they bring up Bush in a 'Clinton-thread', they are chastised for doing so. But when right-leaning members are guilty of the same infractions, it's to prove a point.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?
Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.
it says that anything done by a republican is wrong and bad and stupid and illegal, the same thing done by dems for the same reasons(and the same resolutions) is right and good and brilliant and perfectly fine accomponied by whispers of "why bother with legality questions that only get in the way anyhow"
the word for the day is "duplicity" i have used it alot today regarding the dems...
Clinton made a speech. Wow...that is momentous. Just as momentous and grave in its implications as a pre-emptive war??? Give me a break.
I am not questioning the intel per say. I have no access to the intel and it is impossible to tell if someone lied, no matter what Dave says. I am questioning the actions of this administration based on this intel and the way they went about it.
Anyone else notice that the Neo Cons have been qouting Clinton a lot ?
It's the Republican mantra.
look in my sig
It's the Republican mantra.
look in my sig
And then bombed iraq for 4 days. I guess it is ok to say these things as long as you dont put boots on the ground and remove the problem for good. Even Clinton is on record saying he does not know if those 4 days of bombing got rid of what they were trying to bomb.
Ohhh.. wow you know the term "boots on the ground".... Bombing things is something quite different to invading a country and taking responsibility for it.
That goes far beyond "getting rid of the problem".
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Your question: "what does that say?" - My answer: "it don't say anything".
The reason why? Because certain groups of people here(and elsewhere) are trying to say that Bush made up this war and there was no "reason" for him to do so. They claim he invented intel and the threat. When the previous admin put forth and acted on the same reasoning - these people now have little to stand on with those accusations. Complain all you want about how much "action" was taken all you want, but Saddam never complied and had plenty of opportunities. He should have gotten the hint after '98 - no?
Anyway - What Clinton said/did is very relevant in discussing our policies and intel regarding Iraq. It shows that intel gathered was similar, reasoning used was similar, and that it ultimately was the right thing to do to remove him from power. Some might want to claim that Clinton solved everything with a few hundred cruise missiles, but there was never any follow-up with that and things couldn't just be ignored.
Bottom line - Clinton's handling of the Iraq situation isn't too dissimilar to Bush's - except that Bush actually went to the UN first, and that Bush actually followed through. But whatever - keep trying to blame everything on Bush. People know what Clinton did and said in regards to Iraq - they see right through this "Bush made it up" BS.
CkG
How about the reasons that were used to go to war with Iraq? YOu know, WMD, al queda, mass graves...
WMD? I don't believe they had them or the ability to hurt us with them.
Al Qaeda? BS, plain and simple...but I can guarantee you Iraq is crawling with Al Qaeda now.
Mass Graves? Thier are bigger mass graves in other countries that we aren't invading.
they commited acts of war against iraq, justification was made on the basis of existing UN resolutions. it was thought that air and missile strike would be sufficient, post strike analysis shown otherwise and even clinton admitted in 98 that "the best way to remove the threat is a new iraqi government"
I have to ask. A show of hands will do nicely. 
How many here think that Clinton would have bombed Iraq if this whole Monica thing hadn't come about?
How many here think that Clinton would have bombed Iraq if this whole Monica thing hadn't come about?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
So, Clinton got it wrong, and launched a minor attack.
Bush got it wrong, and launched a major war and occupation, and the fact that Clinton got it wrong makes Bush right?
Bush got it wrong, and launched a major war and occupation, and the fact that Clinton got it wrong makes Bush right?
Originally posted by: Gaard
I have to ask. A show of hands will do nicely.
How many here think that Clinton would have bombed Iraq if this whole Monica thing hadn't come about?
I think it would have happened, maybe the timing would have been different without monica.
Would it be too much to ask for you guys to just quote what you are replying to? Are these mutltiple nested quotes really needed for a one sentence response?
Thanks.
:beer:
Thanks.
:beer:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 386
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter