DealMonkey
Lifer
... and some say, the Heartsurgeon's heart grew three sizes that day ... 🙂
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
heartsurgeon
Diamond Member
typical liberal, no debate about facts, just personal vitriol.
Bush wins in 2004
Except if your Clinton, he has spared no other opportunity to harpoon Bush. Do you really want me to give you examples...i will you know...
Minnie is HOT.
I have NEVER said I hate Clinton (hate is such a liberal, no i meant Progressive emotion!).
BINGO
Actually, the most likely explanation is that Clinton said something that the Portugese Prime Minister thought was supportive of Bush. I suspect that depending on how you parsed his statement...it probably could have meant anything...to anybody..that was the GENIUS of Clinton..(meaning of the word "is", meaning of the word "alone") He was uniquely able to make statements that could not pinned down to a single meaning..or any meaning for that matter. see, i called him a genius....
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Get over the sex crap already - it wasn't even close to being what I said.
Clinton "pre-emptively" struck Iraq because of WMDs. Sure he didn't invade - but his reasoning for taking action is the same as what Bush used. Deny it if you wish though.🙂
CkG
Gaard, quoting Whitling (but adding his own stuff),
Whitling - << Thank God Saddam didn't get the chance to "alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East." Our war stopped that and, incidentally, altered the political and security landscape of the Middle East.>>
Gaard, You give the guy way too much credit. Think back to the misty depths of time in the early 90's when he invaded Kuwait. What happened? And, for extra credit, was a big coalition assembled to make it happen? If you think Saddam was a danger to us, better check under your bed tonight before you turn out the lights.
Whitling - << Thank God Saddam didn't get the chance to "alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East." Our war stopped that and, incidentally, altered the political and security landscape of the Middle East.>>
Gaard, You give the guy way too much credit. Think back to the misty depths of time in the early 90's when he invaded Kuwait. What happened? And, for extra credit, was a big coalition assembled to make it happen? If you think Saddam was a danger to us, better check under your bed tonight before you turn out the lights.
DealMonkey
Lifer
If the White House was wrong about Iraq's alleged WMDs, why doesn't it simply admit its mistake? What is the point of continuing to fight every report and every bit of evidence coming out of Iraq since before the war that all suggests the WMDs simply weren't there? I'm referring to Powell's public comments this week, but also the administration's overall stance.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Well, if Clinton went to war over it, then I would have been frying him. Trot this pony out another time will ya?
Bush can't find a damn thing, and you are trying anything to divert from that fact.
Show me one nuke. Show me one missle with a chemical or biological warhead or shut up and take it like a man.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
They admitted that not finding any WMD doesn't mean anything:
1-9-2004 Bush war advisors: unfound Iraqi weapons matter little
Two of President George W. Bush's military advisors said that the US inability to find illegal weapons in Iraq means little.
DealMonkey
Lifer
Yeah! Show me the WMDs or shut the hell up.
heartsurgeon
Diamond Member
Clinton criticizes Bush's handling of domestic issues during Tougaloo commencement Speech
FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON CRITICIZES BUSH FOREIGN POLICY
Clinton Rejects Blame in Corporate Crisis, Criticizes Bush on Mideast
Clinton Criticizes Republican Tactics, Pledges to Aid Economy
Bill Clinton tries to rally his party, criticizes Bush
Clinton criticizes tax plan, avoids Iraq
Clinton Critical of Bush China Policy in Hong Kong Remarks
In Britain, Clinton Warns Bush on Iraq
Clinton rips Bush tax cut
Clinton Blasts Bush on Foreign Affairs
i'm getting tired of cut and paste...is that enough for now?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Just one more link please. Show where Clinton went to war (nope not against an aspirin factory) about this intel.
Or, like I said, how about a link to that VX laden missle.
LIke I said, if Clinton had gone to war, I would have been all over him. He didn't. He isn't the president any more. Bush did and he is.
You are like a 5 year old justifying getting into a fight because Johnny did. Well, Johnny didn't. Keep talking about big bad Bill though.
Your diversion may fool some, buy not many here.
heartsurgeon
Diamond Member
here we go again, typical liberal tactic..personal vitriol and name calling..
all i did was post a link to an article...you can reach any conclusion abou the article that you want.
personally, i don't seek to "justify" anything..
the "correctness" of this war will not be known for decades..only historians will be be able to pass judgement on it, when
all relevant facts are known, and the consequences of the war are more fully developed.
debate about issues is healthy and productive, it is what makes this country great...name calling isn't
if your really an "intellectual" i recommend you read this.. linky. It may not represent your point of view, but it will lay out for you in detail, why the "otherside" believes in what they are doing. You may agree with them more, or disagree more, but you can do either more intelligently if you read this book.
By the way..did you see this.."Why I, Koch, am bolting for Bush ", Ed Koch, former ultra-liberal mayor of New York, life long Dem, comes out in favor of Bush.....
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
I haven't read the book, however I have heard many interviews of Perle. I strongly disagree with his world view. I am more like that other liberal, George Will. Will maintains that on rare occasion pre emption may be justified, however that presupposes that we are capable of understanding a situation and being right before embarking on an adventure. Neither he nor I am satisfied that this administration did that. If Bush had evidence that Saddam had the means, method, and intent of attacking either the US or another country, I would have been on board with a war ASSUMING that the threat was sufficient, and all other options gone.
The difference between Will and Perle (again not based on the book, but interviews) is that Will thinks it necessary to intervene on a case by case basis when no other alternative is presented, while Perle and his ilk seem to think it is an obligation to overthrow governments as needed to spread his concept of Democracy. If I am incorrect in this, Perle has said nothing which dispels that impression.
Yesterday I heard Will state a very interesting thing. It is that he and other conservatives (and I fall into this category for this purpose) and NeoCons differ in that conservatives believe that social engineering is flawed. People can be encouraged to behave in certain ways, however you cannot make someone THINK in a certain way. NeoCons as Kristol puts it are "Liberals who have been mugged by reality". The problem is that most NeoCons seem to be Liberals who were mugged, and suffer some kind of post traumatic syndrome. They would not dream of social engineering at home, yet have gone on a nation building binge. They believe they people will THINK like they want them to if they only overthrow their government and introduce them to the NeoCon idea of democracy. Somehow, people elsewhere will think as we tell them while people at home do not. Their logic is flawed.
Now, as far as this topic and posts in general.
Broadly, I see three kinds of posters (ignoring the occasional visitor who baits and runs)
First, those who MUST put forward support for Bush, and in doing so will post material from the past, regardless of relevance to todays situation. Their goal appears to be to support the president, and drawing fire away from him is a legitimate tactic. The President is more important than what he does. Your history suggests you fall into this category. Perhaps you are a supporter of Clinton and are demonstrating some sort of late approval for his administration because he had intel and some ideas like Bush. If I am in fact wrong in my assessment, then I would have to apologize, however I can only go by what I see. I would be amenable to correction on this point.
Second are those who MUST attack Bush. It is in their nature to dislike him on principle. Sometimes it is hard for me to distinguish those who personally dislike him without cause from those who have learned to do so based his actions. In Bush's case It is all well and good to say one needs to separate the message from the messenger, however having the same attitude about the doer and the deed does not work.
Then we have the third group, which deals with current issues. They generally do not rely on diversionary tactics to avoid flaws in their position. Politicians are secondary to principle. A particular member comes to mind. He and I have different views, however he is known for supporting his position with current and relevant arguments. I was about to name him, but I think that rude so I won't. I often disagree with many of the conclusions when viewed in context, however that does not lesson my respect for the way he presents himself. He is indeed less hot headed than myself, to his credit.
I think I fall into the third category. I freely admit that I do not like Bush, but that is a learned attitude. I voted for the man, so I am not against many conservative principles, at least as they used to be. He had to work to change my mind about him.
I can say a few things Bush has done that I do approve of. Now that we are in Iraq, I like that he wanted to give outright grants to the Iraqis. Congress changed this to increase Iraq's debt. I find it hard to imagine US reps going around and credibly asking countries to forgive debt when we have imposed more. Debt is debt, and saddling Iraq with more, then having to hypocritically go around asking for forgiveness from others is absurd. I don't blame Bush. I blame Congress. I approve of what we did in Afghanistan. There was no question about the threat of Al Queda or the support from the Taliban for them. We gave the Taliban a chance to surrender them to us, and pretty much told us to fsck off. Although I think war is an evil, sometimes survival takes precedent. That was clear to me in the 9/11 context.
I also agree with Bush in that I don't think we can just pull out of Iraq. We owe them. On the other hand, as I stated elsewhere we need to be open to the reality that perhaps Iraq is not a viable state, and that "democracy" as envisioned by us may not be what they want. People filter reality through cultural context. As long as it works for them, then it needs to work for us. They need to be the drivers seat, or else all we have done is create another Yugoslavia. You know what happened there after the USSR left. We need to be prepared for that, and if that is the case, to help manage the fragmentation of Iraq. If it is not necessary, then that is fine. However historically, when people do not want to belong to particular group, civil war ensues. Our own history is an example. Now this smacks of nation building and nation building doesn't work, does it? I have said as much, and I still believe it. Well, we are in it no matter what we believe or want. A key problem with nation building is the temptation to leave something we "approve" of. While we may initially do so, the people there will eventually reshape things to their liking which based on cultural and religious considerations is likely to happen. That of course presupposes that we aren't all about making Yugoslavia.
I can go on here, and I just might, but you may be wondering why I bring it up at all. It is because I do consider myself an intellectual in a broad sense, and I do not consider you unintelligent. In fact my criticism of you implies a belief in your ability to grasp contexts and understand intellectual tactics and use them. I think you have.
You certainly are free to disregard this post. Certainly many will. What I have presented is a counterpoint of current issues, and beliefs of motivations and my general sense of this forum.
You start off with "Bush should have known better, eh?" Yes indeed he should. If Clinton had started a war, he should have too. I would have hoped (although I cannot know) that if Clinton thought to go into a war, he would have let himself be guided by facts rather than guiding the "facts" to support a foregone conclusion.
Oh, and you and I have been more harshly treated by others on these forums than you are here. If this is a typical liberal attack, then you can consider yourself fortunate. You have had a good day.
heartsurgeon
Diamond Member
most of the posters on this forum are not really interested in a debate about facts or even viewpoints, but rather attacks on one political figure, or another, sprinkled with "liberal" doses of personal vitriol and name calling.
i generally take the position of trying to offer a fact based (links provided to articles, or source material if possible) rebuttal of the most egregious posts (so many to chose from, so little time).
if i seem somewhat strident in my posts...it is only because i am trying to respond to liberal hyperbole in a "proportionate manner"
what i truly find appalling is the utter lack of historical knowledge or perspective that liberal posters in particular seem to revel in.
i will admit that i occasionally post topics as "flame bait" such as the current topic. When i do this, i generally provide a article link that liberals will find distressing, and try not to editorialize myself about what the link says or means. If you notice, my own comment "i suppose Bush should have known better, eh?" can be taken either as an affirmation that Bush screwed up, or as a sarcastic comment meant to "bait" libs into attack mode.
yes, i believe that George Bush should be given the benefit of the doubt, and yes i believe that we have been attacked and drawn into a terrorist war of proportion equal to the Cold War. Neutralizing Saddam will not end the war on terror, neutralizing Bin Laden will not end the war on terror either. i believe that the war on terror can only end when political and economic factors which spawned this hatred of the west and captitalism are altered so that these individuals have something better to do with their energies than try and kill us. i believe that the middle east would be better off transformed into a democratic political system. I believe than Iran on the verge of this, i don't believe that iraq will ever go back to a dictatorship, afganistan has begun a slow but hopeful movement towards representative governance, Saudi Arabia is not stable long term and monarcy must be replaced by something better, and Syria is doomed in its present state as well. We spent Trillions fighting the Cold War. The War on Terror will be very expensive as well. There is no quick easy solution to terror, only long, hard, expensive ones, and the Liberals that shout "no WMDS!" completely miss the point.
i generally take the position of trying to offer a fact based (links provided to articles, or source material if possible) rebuttal of the most egregious posts (so many to chose from, so little time).
if i seem somewhat strident in my posts...it is only because i am trying to respond to liberal hyperbole in a "proportionate manner"
what i truly find appalling is the utter lack of historical knowledge or perspective that liberal posters in particular seem to revel in.
i will admit that i occasionally post topics as "flame bait" such as the current topic. When i do this, i generally provide a article link that liberals will find distressing, and try not to editorialize myself about what the link says or means. If you notice, my own comment "i suppose Bush should have known better, eh?" can be taken either as an affirmation that Bush screwed up, or as a sarcastic comment meant to "bait" libs into attack mode.
yes, i believe that George Bush should be given the benefit of the doubt, and yes i believe that we have been attacked and drawn into a terrorist war of proportion equal to the Cold War. Neutralizing Saddam will not end the war on terror, neutralizing Bin Laden will not end the war on terror either. i believe that the war on terror can only end when political and economic factors which spawned this hatred of the west and captitalism are altered so that these individuals have something better to do with their energies than try and kill us. i believe that the middle east would be better off transformed into a democratic political system. I believe than Iran on the verge of this, i don't believe that iraq will ever go back to a dictatorship, afganistan has begun a slow but hopeful movement towards representative governance, Saudi Arabia is not stable long term and monarcy must be replaced by something better, and Syria is doomed in its present state as well. We spent Trillions fighting the Cold War. The War on Terror will be very expensive as well. There is no quick easy solution to terror, only long, hard, expensive ones, and the Liberals that shout "no WMDS!" completely miss the point.
I think it's safe to assume that you consider this to more acceptable than this...
most of the posters on this forum are not really interested in a debate about facts or even viewpoints, but rather attacks on one political figure, or another, sprinkled with "liberal" doses of personal vitriol and name calling.
It's also safe to assume that others might believe the opposite.
Oh please. You really insult the whole of P&N by saying this. At least have the cajones to admit it was sarcasm instead of saying "It might not have been. 😉"
I take it you belong to the group that thinks because good came from this war that no questions should be asked?
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
