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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Personally, I'd love to see Cad prove his constant claim that there were no objections or outrage to Clinton's Operation Desert Fox. What I recall, and what some quick web searches support, was that there was quite a bit of outrage. A lot of international criticism of the 'U.S. and the Brits going it alone without international support' and here at home the Republicans were all up in arms considering it a distraction from "MonicaGate."

You do have to take into consideration the important differences between the attacks. In Desert Fox, it was intense bombing and air attacks over the course of a few days whereas in Iraqi Freedom it was a long military build-up followed by a more traditional land-war. So in the former, there was very little time for critics to mount their case. In the latter, there was plenty of time for protests and for the anti-war factions to organize and get rolling. Yet, there was criticism and outrage over Desert Fox.

Plus, and as much as Cad likes to claim that Desert Fox and Iraqi Freedom are essentially the same thing, Desert Fox was not a full-scale invasion and occupation. There is a difference between the actual attacks in every conceivable way. Yes, they're both attacks, and yes there was a similar, if not exact, rationale for doing so, but the force applied and the methods used were totally different.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Personally, I'd love to see Cad prove his constant claim that there were no objections or outrage to Clinton's Operation Desert Fox. What I recall, and what some quick web searches support, was that there was quite a bit of outrage. A lot of international criticism of the 'U.S. and the Brits going it alone without international support' and here at home the Republicans were all up in arms considering it a distraction from "MonicaGate."

You do have to take into consideration the important differences between the attacks. In Desert Fox, it was intense bombing and air attacks over the course of a few days whereas in Iraqi Freedom it was a long military build-up followed by a more traditional land-war. So in the former, there was very little time for critics to mount their case. In the latter, there was plenty of time for protests and for the anti-war factions to organize and get rolling. Yet, there was criticism and outrage over Desert Fox.

Plus, and as much as Cad likes to claim that Desert Fox and Iraqi Freedom are essentially the same thing, Desert Fox was not a full-scale invasion and occupation. There is a difference between the actual attacks in every conceivable way. Yes, they're both attacks, and yes there was a similar, if not exact, rationale for doing so, but the force applied and the methods used were totally different.
Click to expand...

<sigh> I didn't say they were the same - they were very different in magnitude, but that doesn't change the fact that they both involved "attacking" a "sovereign country" in a "pre-emptive" manner. Also, what I'm saying is the the people who are questioning Bush did not question Clinton. 😉 There is a difference.

Can you let this go yet? or should we dance every night about this?

CkG
 
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
<sigh> I didn't say they were the same - they were very different in magnitude, but that doesn't change the fact that they both involved "attacking" a "sovereign country" in a "pre-emptive" manner. Also, what I'm saying is the the people who are questioning Bush did not question Clinton. 😉 There is a difference.

Can you let this go yet? or should we dance every night about this?

CkG
Click to expand...

Cad, you dodged my challenge. I want to see some substantiation of your claim that there was no questioning Clinton. Can I have some links? That's not too much to ask is it?

Beyond that however, I don't think anyone had time to question Clinton's actions (or motives) considering it started and was over in a few days. There was very little risk involved in Desert Fox, since it was all air strikes and bombing. Soon as you put boots on the ground everyone starts getting a little nervous. Not to mention that there was a long-time spent building up troop strength in the area. You had more time for people to mull the situation over.

Finally, and this is pretty important, for the most part the democrats were behind the president throughout the war effort. It was only after the evidence started to unravel that you had people questioning the war. And I don't think that's unexpected. I think people should be asking questions.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
<sigh> I didn't say they were the same - they were very different in magnitude, but that doesn't change the fact that they both involved "attacking" a "sovereign country" in a "pre-emptive" manner. Also, what I'm saying is the the people who are questioning Bush did not question Clinton. 😉 There is a difference.

Can you let this go yet? or should we dance every night about this?

CkG
Click to expand...

Cad, you dodged my challenge. I want to see some substantiation of your claim that there was no questioning Clinton. Can I have some links? That's not too much to ask is it?

Beyond that however, I don't think anyone had time to question Clinton's actions (or motives) considering it started and was over in a few days. There was very little risk involved in Desert Fox, since it was all air strikes and bombing. Soon as you put boots on the ground everyone starts getting a little nervous. Not to mention that there was a long-time spent building up troop strength in the area. You had more time for people to mull the situation over.

Finally, and this is pretty important, for the most part the democrats were behind the president throughout the war effort. It was only after the evidence started to unravel that you had people questioning the war. And I don't think that's unexpected. I think people should be asking questions.
Click to expand...

Like I said - the people who are questioning Bush's intel weren't and didn't question it then. How can I prove they weren't? Here is what I can do though 😉

FROM 1998 bombings:
GERMANY: "U.S.-UK Had No Other Choice"
RUSSIA: "It Meets Russia's Interests, Too", "Clinton Needs This Little War"
CZECH REPUBLIC: "The Attack Was Unavoidable"
DENMARK: "U.S. Chose Right Option"
FINLAND: "U.S. Shows It Might"
MACEDONIA: "Saddam Had It Coming"
THE NETHERLANDS: "Countering Saddam"
SLOVENIA: "Bombings Inevitable"
SWEDEN: "Iraq Went Too Far"
ISRAEL: "Saddam Must Be Brought Down"
KUWAIT: "We Want To Get Rid Of Saddam"
SAUDI ARABIA: "Iraqi People's Suffering Falls On Iraqi Leadership"
HONG KONG: "The Only Option"
JAPAN: "Iraq Invites Air Strikes"
AUSTRALIA: "Standing Up To Saddam"
NEW ZEALAND: "Saddam Learns The Hard Way"
SOUTH KOREA: "Confrontation Between U.S. And Iraq" -"Nobody but Hussein provided grounds for President Clinton's decision to attack Iraq."
THAILAND: "Patience Expires For Defiant Iraq"-"Only Iraq must bear responsibility for the military attacks."
CANADA: "Drop A Bomb To Stop A Bomb"
EL SALVADOR: "We Support U.S./UK Action"
PARAGUAY: "Violence Is Justified"

Noteable dissent:
FRANCE: "What A Waste!"
ITALY: "The Loneliness Of The United States"
SPAIN: "Excessive Punishment"
WEST BANK: "Another Aggression"
EGYPT: "No One Believes American And British Pretexts"
JORDAN: "A Tyrannical Anglo-Saxon Aggression"
CHINA: "A Dangerous Precedent"
SOUTH AFRICA: "Double Standard"
MEXICO: "Clinton's Barbarity"

All from GlobalSecurity.org
Contrast that to now.

Can't find too much criticism only questioning his timing. (Domestic Criticism and Domestic Response)
More of the same(next day) but some want to see more action.
Sorry DealMonkey, I couldn't find considerable evidence that the Democrats that oppose Bush now, opposed and questioned Clinton. Sure there are the normal war protesters, but there will always be those. The only reports I could find were ones like from Trent Lott, but he didn't question the war - only the timing due to the impeachment. No one was questioning the intelligence and WMD reason he used.
I agree people can question, but why didn't they after Clinton bombed? Because they knew the intelligence was sound?😉

I guess you win though😉

CkG
 
yepp...
clinton has planted a great big boot in the @ss of the democrats running for president.

their plan (bill and the beast) is to run in 2008, therefore no democrat can win in 2004...
 
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
yepp...
clinton has planted a great big boot in the @ss of the democrats running for president.

their plan (bill and the beast) is to run in 2008, therefore no democrat can win in 2004...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be to quick to rule out a '04 run.😉 The Clintons are some slippery creatures. Notice how the normally shrill and outspoken Hillary has been quiet as of late? Maybe letting the 9 dwarves hang themselve with the Iraq thing so she can just slip right into the Dem nomination. Meh - doesn't matter - she wouldn't beat Bush.

CkG
 
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
<sigh> I didn't say they were the same - they were very different in magnitude, but that doesn't change the fact that they both involved "attacking" a "sovereign country" in a "pre-emptive" manner. Also, what I'm saying is the the people who are questioning Bush did not question Clinton. 😉 There is a difference.

Can you let this go yet? or should we dance every night about this?

CkG
Click to expand...

Cad, you dodged my challenge. I want to see some substantiation of your claim that there was no questioning Clinton. Can I have some links? That's not too much to ask is it?

Beyond that however, I don't think anyone had time to question Clinton's actions (or motives) considering it started and was over in a few days. There was very little risk involved in Desert Fox, since it was all air strikes and bombing. Soon as you put boots on the ground everyone starts getting a little nervous. Not to mention that there was a long-time spent building up troop strength in the area. You had more time for people to mull the situation over.

Finally, and this is pretty important, for the most part the democrats were behind the president throughout the war effort. It was only after the evidence started to unravel that you had people questioning the war. And I don't think that's unexpected. I think people should be asking questions.
Click to expand...

Like I said - the people who are questioning Bush's intel weren't and didn't question it then. How can I prove they weren't? Here is what I can do though 😉

FROM 1998 bombings:
GERMANY: "U.S.-UK Had No Other Choice"
RUSSIA: "It Meets Russia's Interests, Too", "Clinton Needs This Little War"
CZECH REPUBLIC: "The Attack Was Unavoidable"
DENMARK: "U.S. Chose Right Option"
FINLAND: "U.S. Shows It Might"
MACEDONIA: "Saddam Had It Coming"
THE NETHERLANDS: "Countering Saddam"
SLOVENIA: "Bombings Inevitable"
SWEDEN: "Iraq Went Too Far"
ISRAEL: "Saddam Must Be Brought Down"
KUWAIT: "We Want To Get Rid Of Saddam"
SAUDI ARABIA: "Iraqi People's Suffering Falls On Iraqi Leadership"
HONG KONG: "The Only Option"
JAPAN: "Iraq Invites Air Strikes"
AUSTRALIA: "Standing Up To Saddam"
NEW ZEALAND: "Saddam Learns The Hard Way"
SOUTH KOREA: "Confrontation Between U.S. And Iraq" -"Nobody but Hussein provided grounds for President Clinton's decision to attack Iraq."
THAILAND: "Patience Expires For Defiant Iraq"-"Only Iraq must bear responsibility for the military attacks."
CANADA: "Drop A Bomb To Stop A Bomb"
EL SALVADOR: "We Support U.S./UK Action"
PARAGUAY: "Violence Is Justified"

Noteable dissent:
FRANCE: "What A Waste!"
ITALY: "The Loneliness Of The United States"
SPAIN: "Excessive Punishment"
WEST BANK: "Another Aggression"
EGYPT: "No One Believes American And British Pretexts"
JORDAN: "A Tyrannical Anglo-Saxon Aggression"
CHINA: "A Dangerous Precedent"
SOUTH AFRICA: "Double Standard"
MEXICO: "Clinton's Barbarity"

All from GlobalSecurity.org
Contrast that to now.

Can't find too much criticism only questioning his timing. (Domestic Criticism and Domestic Response)
More of the same(next day) but some want to see more action.
Sorry DealMonkey, I couldn't find considerable evidence that the Democrats that oppose Bush now, opposed and questioned Clinton. Sure there are the normal war protesters, but there will always be those. The only reports I could find were ones like from Trent Lott, but he didn't question the war - only the timing due to the impeachment. No one was questioning the intelligence and WMD reason he used.
I agree people can question, but why didn't they after Clinton bombed? Because they knew the intelligence was sound?😉

I guess you win though😉

CkG
Click to expand...

You aren't going to come in and gloat, DealMonkey? I said you win, come on - lets see the celebratorial monkey dance 😀

CkG
 
*Cha cha cha*

Thanks Cad. Although, I hate to think I just wore you down. 😉 Honestly, I would have done my monkey dance earlier, however I haven't had much time for politics in the last few days ...
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
*Cha cha cha*

Thanks Cad. Although, I hate to think I just wore you down. 😉 Honestly, I would have done my monkey dance earlier, however I haven't had much time for politics in the last few days ...
Click to expand...

I think you missed the sarcasm😉 But whatever. You won't acknowlegde my point so I give up.🙂

CkG
 
Hence the wink 😉 But seriously, I think I made some pretty good points about the criticism of Clinton. There was criticism, but it was in proportion to the size of his attack. Seriously, how much uproar do you expect for a 4-day bombing run? There was no pre-Desert Fox military build-up. There were no endless speeches and talking points about going to war w/ Iraq. It was announced as it was already underway. Most of the really vigorous railing was done by the Republicans who claimed in was a distraction from MonicaGate.

But in the end, I hate getting sucked into these Clinton v. Bush deals because they're really so pointless. I thought Clinton was a jackass too... Besides, I reserve the right to criticize whomever is in office at the time without precondition. Isn't that the American way? 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top