Clinton Says Saddam Never Accounted for Weapons; Bush's Uranium Mistake Understandable

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Caddy, did Clinton have intelligence that the yellow cakes were a fraud? Did he take over another country by distorting intelligence?

Did Clinton have intelligence stating that Saddam had a nuclear program? Did Clinton attack another country by highlighting the nuclear intelligence? Where is the proof Mr.Clinton where is the proof? How dare you attack without showing proof or going waiting for the report, or even asking for UN approval? Where are these programs Mr.Clinton?

oh and one mor thing Mr.Clinton, where is my aspirin?

CkG

Caddy, the doctors have you on suppositories.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
(cross-post)

First of all, it seems kinda pathetic that Bush needs the allmighty Bubba to bail him out of this mess. Secondly, I don't think even he knew what WMD were or were not in Iraq.

"At the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what [Saddam] had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes, and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it.

"But we didn't know.

We don't know. Now doesn't that seem like a reasonable explanation? He's not up there saying WE KNOW FOR A FACT they have WMD, we even KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. He's not up there at the podium making little "KABLOOOEEEE!" sounds and creating mushroom cloud gestures. Now, don't get me wrong, I think Clinton is equally full of crap, but at least he's not making any wild, unsubstantiated claims...

Ah but what you fail to mention is what Clinton also said about WMDs and Iraq during that call. Care to tell us what Clinton said about what he KNEW when he "left office"? Or care to share what he KNEW in December '98? Hmm....
The fact that "he didn't know" about the destruction proves the point I've been saying - If we investigate Bush's intelligence then we better go all the way back. Clinton didn't follow up on his bombing? Where is the proof to the claims he made in his Dec 16 speech in '98? Why did he attack pre-emptively? Hmmm....

Oh, and just one more thing while you look up and read that '98 speech. Where is his "proof" or intel as to Iraq's nuclear programs and such? Curious, he didn't mention that during his call to Larry King Doesn't want to get caught with his pants down again? Doesn't want to have to testify to congress? Afraid he'll get caught lying on the stand again? Hmm....

Remember - if Bush's intelligence info is in question then Clinton's is surely in question too since they both made the same claims. Where is/was his proof? Does he get a free pass? To be consistant...

CkG

DM, MB, et al note: Again what Clinton did/said does not absolve Bush of anything - but it you question Bush, you are bringing Clinton intelligence into question also.

<*sigh*> Caddy, you missed my point entirely. Blah blah blah. What's with all of your leading questions? You're being way too smug for the situation here...

Besides, my point is not, repeat NOT, about proof. My point is that at least Clinton has the balls to say "he doesn't know" which in my opinion is considerably different than what the Bush Administration has been saying. The fact is, neither Bush OR Clinton really knew anything about what Iraq had or didn't have. It was all speculation and little scraps of questionable intel. I think both Clinton and Bush attacked (in their own ways) because it was decided that was a better course of action than doing nothing. I still don't think that was right, however. And I don't necessarily agree with either of them. And I think Bush is STILL wrong for suggesting he knew more than he really did about Iraq's WMD programs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
(cross-post)

First of all, it seems kinda pathetic that Bush needs the allmighty Bubba to bail him out of this mess. Secondly, I don't think even he knew what WMD were or were not in Iraq.

"At the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what [Saddam] had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes, and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it.

"But we didn't know.

We don't know. Now doesn't that seem like a reasonable explanation? He's not up there saying WE KNOW FOR A FACT they have WMD, we even KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. He's not up there at the podium making little "KABLOOOEEEE!" sounds and creating mushroom cloud gestures. Now, don't get me wrong, I think Clinton is equally full of crap, but at least he's not making any wild, unsubstantiated claims...

Ah but what you fail to mention is what Clinton also said about WMDs and Iraq during that call. Care to tell us what Clinton said about what he KNEW when he "left office"? Or care to share what he KNEW in December '98? Hmm....
The fact that "he didn't know" about the destruction proves the point I've been saying - If we investigate Bush's intelligence then we better go all the way back. Clinton didn't follow up on his bombing? Where is the proof to the claims he made in his Dec 16 speech in '98? Why did he attack pre-emptively? Hmmm....

Oh, and just one more thing while you look up and read that '98 speech. Where is his "proof" or intel as to Iraq's nuclear programs and such? Curious, he didn't mention that during his call to Larry King Doesn't want to get caught with his pants down again? Doesn't want to have to testify to congress? Afraid he'll get caught lying on the stand again? Hmm....

Remember - if Bush's intelligence info is in question then Clinton's is surely in question too since they both made the same claims. Where is/was his proof? Does he get a free pass? To be consistant...

CkG

DM, MB, et al note: Again what Clinton did/said does not absolve Bush of anything - but it you question Bush, you are bringing Clinton intelligence into question also.

<*sigh*> Caddy, you missed my point entirely. Blah blah blah. What's with all of your leading questions? You're being way too smug for the situation here...

Besides, my point is not, repeat NOT, about proof. My point is that at least Clinton has the balls to say "he doesn't know" which in my opinion is considerably different than what the Bush Administration has been saying. The fact is, neither Bush OR Clinton really knew anything about what Iraq had or didn't have. It was all speculation and little scraps of questionable intel. I think both Clinton and Bush attacked (in their own ways) because it was decided that was a better course of action than doing nothing. I still don't think that was right, however. And I don't necessarily agree with either of them. And I think Bush is STILL wrong for suggesting he knew more than he really did about Iraq's WMD programs.

So what that he doesn't know - that only makes people ask more questions. To say I don't know doesn't take balls, it just muddies the water.
The whole question surrounding this war is "proof". You people are clamoring for Bush to show "proof" of his claims Saddam had WMDs, so if you are to be consistant with your clamor for "proof" you'd better look at the intel both he and Clinton had. Clinton made the same claims Bush did but he was never asked to show proof and he admits he doesn't have proof. Don't you see the hypocracy? People trying to slam Bush for not proving his statements were true, but yet don't say a peep that Clinton didn't and can't prove his statements were true.

That has been my argument about this WMD thing and Clinton. I didn't miss your point, It just isn't the ENTIRE significance of Clinton's statement. I ask leading questions because you don't understand the connections when I point them out to you so I'm trying to let you figure them out on your own.

We'll leave the who nuclear argument alone for a while until people figure out this part first.

Have a nice day
CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Caddy, did Clinton have intelligence that the yellow cakes were a fraud? Did he take over another country by distorting intelligence?

Did Clinton have intelligence stating that Saddam had a nuclear program? Did Clinton attack another country by highlighting the nuclear intelligence? Where is the proof Mr.Clinton where is the proof? How dare you attack without showing proof or going waiting for the report, or even asking for UN approval? Where are these programs Mr.Clinton?

oh and one mor thing Mr.Clinton, where is my aspirin?

CkG

Caddy, the doctors have you on suppositories.

I think you missed the point of the aspirin question

CkG

 

[burnedout]

Former President Clinton hath spoken!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

So what that he doesn't know - that only makes people ask more questions. To say I don't know doesn't take balls, it just muddies the water.

See, that's what really bugs you right there. The fact that people are asking questions. It only muddies the water in the sense that Clinton didn't know jack sh*t and neither did Bush. They both just attacked based on a bunch of assumptions. It takes honesty to say you don't know, Cad. Bush had to sell the war and he couldn't possibly do that if he didn't know anything, now could he?

The whole question surrounding this war is "proof". You people are clamoring for Bush to show "proof" of his claims Saddam had WMDs, so if you are to be consistant with your clamor for "proof" you'd better look at the intel both he and Clinton had. Clinton made the same claims Bush did but he was never asked to show proof and he admits he doesn't have proof. Don't you see the hypocracy? People trying to slam Bush for not proving his statements were true, but yet don't say a peep that Clinton didn't and can't prove his statements were true.

Dude, I just slammed Clinton along with Bush in my last post. See here: "I think both Clinton and Bush attacked (in their own ways) because it was decided that was a better course of action than doing nothing. I still don't think that was right, however. And I don't necessarily agree with either of them." Where in there DON'T you see a peep about Clinton? I honestly don't think you even read my posts, either that or you're just flinging accusations at some unknown person here on the forums. I really can't tell...

That has been my argument about this WMD thing and Clinton. I didn't miss your point, It just isn't the ENTIRE significance of Clinton's statement. I ask leading questions because you don't understand the connections when I point them out to you so I'm trying to let you figure them out on your own.

You're trying to make everyone believe your side of it Cad. It's not that we don't understand what you're doing, it's that we're not falling for it. There's a difference.

We'll leave the who nuclear argument alone for a while until people figure out this part first.

Don't even know what you're talking about here...

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: etech

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

Tell me more about Clinton's 'actions'. How exactly did they resolve the situation? Was Saddam and his sons still in power. Was Saddam still supporting terrorists? Just how effective were Clinton's actions?

Clinton saw evidence of where exactly the WMD were, so he took the best route possible to destroy them, by airstrike. When a President sees that a bad guy has a stash of WMDs, he should try to destroy those WMDs, and he has the legal right if those WMDs are banned by the UN. If Bush, acting on his intelligence of where the WMDs were that posed the imminent threat to our country also called in airstrikes on the locations, that would have been great. Wrong or not, it would have been better than launching a full scale land invasion and occupation which has been called a "guerrilla type war" by the commanding general.

And what if Saddam, for some strange reason, decided NOT to set his biological and chemical weapons on the ground in a huge heap with a giant sign next to them? Golly gee, then I guess we can't really do anything about it. Shucks.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: etech

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

Tell me more about Clinton's 'actions'. How exactly did they resolve the situation? Was Saddam and his sons still in power. Was Saddam still supporting terrorists? Just how effective were Clinton's actions?

Clinton saw evidence of where exactly the WMD were, so he took the best route possible to destroy them, by airstrike. When a President sees that a bad guy has a stash of WMDs, he should try to destroy those WMDs, and he has the legal right if those WMDs are banned by the UN. If Bush, acting on his intelligence of where the WMDs were that posed the imminent threat to our country also called in airstrikes on the locations, that would have been great. Wrong or not, it would have been better than launching a full scale land invasion and occupation which has been called a "guerrilla type war" by the commanding general.

And what if Saddam, for some strange reason, decided NOT to set his biological and chemical weapons on the ground in a huge heap with a giant sign next to them? Golly gee, then I guess we can't really do anything about it. Shucks.

So you're saying that the only solution to the threat Saddam posed was to launch a full scale unilateral land invasion and unilateral occupation which has been called a "guerrilla type war" by the commanding general? There were many options available. Doing absolutely nothing (which would have been absolutely dumb) and launching a full scale unilateral land invasion and unilateral occupation which has been called a "guerrilla type war" by the commanding general weren't the only two options.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

So what that he doesn't know - that only makes people ask more questions. To say I don't know doesn't take balls, it just muddies the water.

See, that's what really bugs you right there. The fact that people are asking questions. It only muddies the water in the sense that Clinton didn't know jack sh*t and neither did Bush. They both just attacked based on a bunch of assumptions. It takes honesty to say you don't know, Cad. Bush had to sell the war and he couldn't possibly do that if he didn't know anything, now could he?

The whole question surrounding this war is "proof". You people are clamoring for Bush to show "proof" of his claims Saddam had WMDs, so if you are to be consistant with your clamor for "proof" you'd better look at the intel both he and Clinton had. Clinton made the same claims Bush did but he was never asked to show proof and he admits he doesn't have proof. Don't you see the hypocracy? People trying to slam Bush for not proving his statements were true, but yet don't say a peep that Clinton didn't and can't prove his statements were true.

Dude, I just slammed Clinton along with Bush in my last post. See here: "I think both Clinton and Bush attacked (in their own ways) because it was decided that was a better course of action than doing nothing. I still don't think that was right, however. And I don't necessarily agree with either of them." Where in there DON'T you see a peep about Clinton? I honestly don't think you even read my posts, either that or you're just flinging accusations at some unknown person here on the forums. I really can't tell...

That has been my argument about this WMD thing and Clinton. I didn't miss your point, It just isn't the ENTIRE significance of Clinton's statement. I ask leading questions because you don't understand the connections when I point them out to you so I'm trying to let you figure them out on your own.

You're trying to make everyone believe your side of it Cad. It's not that we don't understand what you're doing, it's that we're not falling for it. There's a difference.

We'll leave the who nuclear argument alone for a while until people figure out this part first.

Don't even know what you're talking about here...

"you people" is generic. And you aren't "buying" it becuase you don't understand or choose not to see what I'm saying. Oh, and I knew the nuke thing would confuse you so I left it out. There is a whole different case that can be made if you want to play the "nukes is what Bush pushed in the SOTU speech" game but lets get you up to speed on this issue first.

This isn't a thing about "slamming" Clinton, check your bias against me at the door. I'm not saying that Clinton did anything wrong, nor am I justifying Bush's actions with Clintons. What the comparison is, the level of accountability for their actions and statements. Bush made statements damning Saddam, Clinton made statements damning Saddam. Both damning statements were about Saddam possesing and having programs for WMDs. Bush is being questioned on his statements(and intelligence) damning Saddam but Clinton wasn't/isn't.

Getting it yet?

And don't play the "Clinton didn't invade" game - it doesn't play. Both attacked a nation without UN approval. Both used action they used WMDs to justify. The amount of force they used to attack doesn't matter in the question of "legality" of the attacks or in the intelligence was good enough question. It would be like saying you were going 70 in a 55(Clinton) or 80 in a 55(Bush) - Both "broke the law" (allegedly) and only one is being questioned.

Once you learn the above we can get back to the question of why his statement on Larry King was relevant to the current situation, but once you learn the above you will most likely figure it out on your own.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

I'm sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY know what history will show? Do you have a crystal ball? Making claims on how history will view current events is impossible.

So you want the US to fail at rebuilding at Iraq and have it fall back into a state of brutal dictatorship. I dont know what the future hold, but you will have to forgive me for being optomistic.

Forgive the rest of us for being realistic then.

So you want the Iraq back in the hands of the Baathe party?

Has anyone said that? Do you think projecting absurd ideas of what other people want is an effective form of debate?

Well you have said that we will fail at rebuilding iraq. That failure would likely lead to the Baathe party regaining power.

Or more directly, what condition will Iraq be in after we fail at rebuilding, from a realists point of view.

No comment?

 

[Bowfinger]

Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
This isn't a thing about "slamming" Clinton, check your bias against me at the door. I'm not saying that Clinton did anything wrong, nor am I justifying Bush's actions with Clintons. What the comparison is, the level of accountability for their actions and statements. Bush made statements damning Saddam, Clinton made statements damning Saddam. Both damning statements were about Saddam possesing and having programs for WMDs. Bush is being questioned on his statements(and intelligence) damning Saddam but Clinton wasn't/isn't.

Getting it yet?

I.e., same old, same old - he cannot defend Bush-lite so he's trying to divert us into defending Clinton. DealMonkey was 100% right. We get it, we're just not falling for it. If you're so convinced Bush is wonderful, you should be able to defend him and support him without constantly changing the subject.

And don't play the "Clinton didn't invade" game - it doesn't play. Both attacked a nation without UN approval. Both used action they used WMDs to justify. The amount of force they used to attack doesn't matter in the question of "legality" of the attacks or in the intelligence was good enough question.

It doesn't play? Says who? Five years ago, Clinton staged a limited attack based on solid, up-to-date intelligence. This year, Bush launched a full-scale invasion and occupation, killing thousands of innocent people and costing us over $100 billion based on bogus, manufactured evidence. If your Bush worship is so blind that you cannot even acknowledge this obvious, irrefutable, and critical difference, then you are irrelevant to any discussion about Bush. Your position will invariably be an empty regurgitation of whatever the White House is saying on that day.

Either show you are capable of independent thought, or stop pretending to be anything other than a die-hard Bush apologist. Like it or not, the fact that Clinton didn't invade and Bush did makes ALL the difference in the world.

It would be like saying you were going 70 in a 55(Clinton) or 80 in a 55(Bush) - Both "broke the law" (allegedly) and only one is being questioned.

Yep, that's pretty close . . . except Clinton was going 65 in a 55 on a nice four-lane highway on a clear day five years ago; Bush is going 150 down a crowded sidewalk in the fog, killing innocent people left and right.

You assert the two are equivalent because their reasons are the same -- both were in a hurry. You assert that we cannot question the mayhem Bush is causing today unless we also question Clinton's drive five years ago.

We get it. It's baloney. (If that one doesn't sink in, I can try another cowboy analogy.)

Once you learn the above we can get back to the question of why his statement on Larry King was relevant to the current situation, but once you learn the above you will most likely figure it out on your own.

My theory is he was after you:

1. You "know" Clinton never tells the truth
2. You "know" Bush-lite never tells a lie
3. Clinton says Bush may have told the truth
4. Ergo, Bush must have lied
5. Cad's head explodes

Sound about right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
This isn't a thing about "slamming" Clinton, check your bias against me at the door. I'm not saying that Clinton did anything wrong, nor am I justifying Bush's actions with Clintons. What the comparison is, the level of accountability for their actions and statements. Bush made statements damning Saddam, Clinton made statements damning Saddam. Both damning statements were about Saddam possesing and having programs for WMDs. Bush is being questioned on his statements(and intelligence) damning Saddam but Clinton wasn't/isn't.

Getting it yet?

I.e., same old, same old - he cannot defend Bush-lite so he's trying to divert us into defending Clinton. DealMonkey was 100% right. We get it, we're just not falling for it. If you're so convinced Bush is wonderful, you should be able to defend him and support him without constantly changing the subject.

And don't play the "Clinton didn't invade" game - it doesn't play. Both attacked a nation without UN approval. Both used action they used WMDs to justify. The amount of force they used to attack doesn't matter in the question of "legality" of the attacks or in the intelligence was good enough question.

It doesn't play? Says who? Five years ago, Clinton staged a limited attack based on solid, up-to-date intelligence. This year, Bush launched a full-scale invasion and occupation, killing thousands of innocent people and costing us over $100 billion based on bogus, manufactured evidence. If your Bush worship is so blind that you cannot even acknowledge this obvious, irrefutable, and critical difference, then you are irrelevant to any discussion about Bush. Your position will invariably be an empty regurgitation of whatever the White House is saying on that day.

Either show you are capable of independent thought, or stop pretending to be anything other than a die-hard Bush apologist. Like it or not, the fact that Clinton didn't invade and Bush did makes ALL the difference in the world.

It would be like saying you were going 70 in a 55(Clinton) or 80 in a 55(Bush) - Both "broke the law" (allegedly) and only one is being questioned.

Yep, that's pretty close . . . except Clinton was going 65 in a 55 on a nice four-lane highway on a clear day five years ago; Bush is going 150 down a crowded sidewalk in the fog, killing innocent people left and right.

You assert the two are equivalent because their reasons are the same -- both were in a hurry. You assert that we cannot question the mayhem Bush is causing today unless we also question Clinton's drive five years ago.

We get it. It's baloney. (If that one doesn't sink in, I can try another cowboy analogy.)

Once you learn the above we can get back to the question of why his statement on Larry King was relevant to the current situation, but once you learn the above you will most likely figure it out on your own.

My theory is he was after you:

1. You "know" Clinton never tells the truth
2. You "know" Bush-lite never tells a lie
3. Clinton says Bush may have told the truth
4. Ergo, Bush must have lied
5. Cad's head explodes

Sound about right?

Go home then.
No you are thinking with partisanship. This is not about defending Bush or "getting" Clinton- How many times do I need to state that. Your incessant attempts at slamming me and my intelligence are wearing thin.
This is a question about backing up one's action with proof and intel. If people are questioning Bush on his use of intel - why aren't/didn't these same people question Clinton on his? Both used the same justification(Reasons) to attack Iraq. Both attacked Iraq.

It doesn't get any more simple than that. I'm sorry you can't grasp it's simplicity.

This isn't an endgame question, this is a "truth seeker" question and their quite apparent hypocracy.
I wouldn't be opposed to a FULL investigation which I think I've made quite clear. I supported action when Clinton took it and I supported action when Bush took it. My position hasn't changed. Take the intel question as far back as it needs to go to find the source of the problem. If you are so determined to prove me wrong in my support for action against Iraq, then go for it, prove me wrong twice; once now and once in '98.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

The difference is those that supported Clinton did not question his intel. Those same people that oppose Bush question the intel. That is the connection.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

The difference is those that supported Clinton did not question his intel. Those same people that oppose Bush question the intel. That is the connection.

Are they questioning the same intel or the incremental portion and what that may indicate... surely we have increased our intel over the time involved... what folks interpret this incremental intel to mean seems to be the question... What did the Administration folks interpret it to mean versus what the intel folks said it meant.. under both administration ought to be the debate... no?

 

[Moonbeam]

LR, you are such a very smart fellow even up against the marshmellow. Actually though Clinton's intel sucked and he caught hell for it, bombing a baby milk factory and all. And like Bush everybody knew he bombed as a ruse. Both of those worthless lying scumbags used murder and violence to achieve personal aims. Clinton needed to appear tough to slimming Repubs, and Bush was pushing PNAC. But Bush killed American service men pretending they went to protect the US.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
LR, you are such a very smart fellow even up against the marshmellow. Actually though Clinton's intel sucked and he caught hell for it, bombing a baby milk factory and all. And like Bush everybody knew he bombed as a ruse. Both of those worthless lying scumbags used murder and violence to achieve personal aims. Clinton needed to appear tough to slimming Repubs, and Bush was pushing PNAC. But Bush killed American service men pretending they went to protect the US.

So our Administration under Clinton and Bush take what they're given by civil servant spooks and interpret it to mean what ever it needs to mean in order to further the Agenda that they are pursuing...? Hmmmm

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

The difference is those that supported Clinton did not question his intel. Those same people that oppose Bush question the intel. That is the connection.

Really? How do you know? Do you have any proof at all, or are you just making this up hoping to get Bush off the hook?

Then, of course, no one from the CIA and the Clinton administration came forward to say Clinton's intel was forged and doctored and willfully manipulated by the White House and Pentagon. Bush isn't so clean.

Oh, yeah, Clinton didn't invade and occupy Iraq, killing thousands of innocent people and costing us over a $100 billion. As much as some of you want to deny it, this makes all the difference in the world. If you're going to start a war, you damn well better have substantial, verified information. You don't invade another country based on hearsay and wishful thinking.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

The difference is those that supported Clinton did not question his intel. Those same people that oppose Bush question the intel. That is the connection.

Are they questioning the same intel or the incremental portion and what that may indicate... surely we have increased our intel over the time involved... what folks interpret this incremental intel to mean seems to be the question... What did the Administration folks interpret it to mean versus what the intel folks said it meant.. under both administration ought to be the debate... no?

Yes it should be up for debate. I find it odd that democratic leaders passed the iraqi liberation act in 1998, but in 2002 wanted little to do with liberating iraq. In 1998 these same democratic leaders were not too concerned about having UN support for such actions as well. Our country is not very well served by such blatent partison politics.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

The difference is those that supported Clinton did not question his intel. Those same people that oppose Bush question the intel. That is the connection.

Are they questioning the same intel or the incremental portion and what that may indicate... surely we have increased our intel over the time involved... what folks interpret this incremental intel to mean seems to be the question... What did the Administration folks interpret it to mean versus what the intel folks said it meant.. under both administration ought to be the debate... no?

Again, as charrison quite simply put it, is that the people who are questioning Bush's intel didn't question Clinton's intel. That is the crux of the whole case. This isn't a issue of blaming Clinton or absolving Bush - heck, if we need to find out our intel failures, then by all means lets do so, but to only question Bush's intel is shortsighted since nobody seems to know if Clinton's intel was correct since they didn't seem to follow up on the damage - or atleast Bill claims he doesn't know.

CkG

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

The difference is those that supported Clinton did not question his intel. Those same people that oppose Bush question the intel. That is the connection.

Are they questioning the same intel or the incremental portion and what that may indicate... surely we have increased our intel over the time involved... what folks interpret this incremental intel to mean seems to be the question... What did the Administration folks interpret it to mean versus what the intel folks said it meant.. under both administration ought to be the debate... no?

Again, as charrison quite simply put it, is that the people who are questioning Bush's intel didn't question Clinton's intel. That is the crux of the whole case. This isn't a issue of blaming Clinton or absolving Bush - heck, if we need to find out our intel failures, then by all means lets do so, but to only question Bush's intel is shortsighted since nobody seems to know if Clinton's intel was correct since they didn't seem to follow up on the damage - or atleast Bill claims he doesn't know.

CkG

Clinton was questioned on his strikes at the time. In fact I remember hearing a lot about it back then.

Bush launched an invasion and occupation which is getting a proportional amount of attention. Get it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

The difference is those that supported Clinton did not question his intel. Those same people that oppose Bush question the intel. That is the connection.

Really? How do you know? Do you have any proof at all, or are you just making this up hoping to get Bush off the hook?

Then, of course, no one from the CIA and the Clinton administration came forward to say Clinton's intel was forged and doctored and willfully manipulated by the White House and Pentagon. Bush isn't so clean.

Oh, yeah, Clinton didn't invade and occupy Iraq, killing thousands of innocent people and costing us over a $100 billion. As much as some of you want to deny it, this makes all the difference in the world. If you're going to start a war, you damn well better have substantial, verified information. You don't invade another country based on hearsay and wishful thinking.

If you attack a country for 4 days you better damn well be able to prove it too. Why can't you see that the magnitude of the action doesn't change the intent and justification. No one came forward because nobody questioned it - duh. That's what I am saying. And again for the 100th time - this isn't a question of deflecting blame or slamming Clinton. Clinton came out and said he didn't know how successful his 4 days worth of strikes were but what he did know was "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for,". Why wasn't his strike questioned? and why can't it still be looked at if we are truely looking for the truth of supposed intel misques?


CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

The difference is those that supported Clinton did not question his intel. Those same people that oppose Bush question the intel. That is the connection.

Are they questioning the same intel or the incremental portion and what that may indicate... surely we have increased our intel over the time involved... what folks interpret this incremental intel to mean seems to be the question... What did the Administration folks interpret it to mean versus what the intel folks said it meant.. under both administration ought to be the debate... no?

Again, as charrison quite simply put it, is that the people who are questioning Bush's intel didn't question Clinton's intel. That is the crux of the whole case. This isn't a issue of blaming Clinton or absolving Bush - heck, if we need to find out our intel failures, then by all means lets do so, but to only question Bush's intel is shortsighted since nobody seems to know if Clinton's intel was correct since they didn't seem to follow up on the damage - or atleast Bill claims he doesn't know.

CkG

Clinton was questioned on his strikes at the time. In fact I remember hearing a lot about it back then.

Bush launched an invasion and occupation which is getting a proportional amount of attention. Get it?

The timing of the attack was questioned and he was questioned on if he did enough. But his intel was never questioned. Nobody questioned his lack of UN support. No one questioned it only being a bilateral attack.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

The difference is those that supported Clinton did not question his intel. Those same people that oppose Bush question the intel. That is the connection.

Are they questioning the same intel or the incremental portion and what that may indicate... surely we have increased our intel over the time involved... what folks interpret this incremental intel to mean seems to be the question... What did the Administration folks interpret it to mean versus what the intel folks said it meant.. under both administration ought to be the debate... no?

Again, as charrison quite simply put it, is that the people who are questioning Bush's intel didn't question Clinton's intel. That is the crux of the whole case. This isn't a issue of blaming Clinton or absolving Bush - heck, if we need to find out our intel failures, then by all means lets do so, but to only question Bush's intel is shortsighted since nobody seems to know if Clinton's intel was correct since they didn't seem to follow up on the damage - or atleast Bill claims he doesn't know.

CkG

The Congress is privy to the intel as is the Admin... after the fact, however... now is the time to evaluate the contract.. Bush promised there was an exigent circumstance ... (etc) now the people via their agents... the Congress seek to validate the actions they (the agents) were asked to take on faith ... Clinton is in NY somewhere and not involved to my knowledge...
If I choose not to ask a question of person A but, later choose to ask person B a question... although similar to what I may have asked person A... the answer from B is all I am interested in cuz person B was the one asked..

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
What is the nexus between Bush's activity and Clinton's? The intel source? OK.. lets say the same person told Clinton and Bush (their people) the relevant intel... are you saying the intel remained the same for the five years between '98 and the invasion of '03.. if it has changed and don't you think it ought to have... then there is no nexus.. other than the utterer of the intel... Clinton operated under the intel in hand at that time and Bush operated under the intel in hand at his time.. The question needing being asked is is there a relationship between what Bush was told and what he said he was told... and what he acted on... don't ya think?

The difference is those that supported Clinton did not question his intel. Those same people that oppose Bush question the intel. That is the connection.

Are they questioning the same intel or the incremental portion and what that may indicate... surely we have increased our intel over the time involved... what folks interpret this incremental intel to mean seems to be the question... What did the Administration folks interpret it to mean versus what the intel folks said it meant.. under both administration ought to be the debate... no?

Again, as charrison quite simply put it, is that the people who are questioning Bush's intel didn't question Clinton's intel. That is the crux of the whole case. This isn't a issue of blaming Clinton or absolving Bush - heck, if we need to find out our intel failures, then by all means lets do so, but to only question Bush's intel is shortsighted since nobody seems to know if Clinton's intel was correct since they didn't seem to follow up on the damage - or atleast Bill claims he doesn't know.

CkG

The Congress is privy to the intel as is the Admin... after the fact, however... now is the time to evaluate the contract.. Bush promised there was an exigent circumstance ... (etc) now the people via their agents... the Congress seek to validate the actions they (the agents) were asked to take on faith ... Clinton is in NY somewhere and not involved to my knowledge...
If I choose not to ask a question of person A but, later choose to ask person B a question... although similar to what I may have asked person A... the answer from B is all I am interested in cuz person B was the one asked..

Actually a bipartison committie is privie to same intel at the same time as the president.