• 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.

Double Standard?

Siddhartha

Siddhartha

Lifer
If Clinton had invaded an country using the justification that that country was a threat to the US because it had WMD and none were found. The war turned into a bloody occupation with US citizens being killed and or wounded almost daily. Also ex-members of his adminstration state that there was no connection of what happened during an attacked in the US with that country.

Wouldn't the Republicans and conservatives be writing articles of Impeachment right now?

Sounds like a double standard to me...
 
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
If Clinton had invaded an country using the justification that that country was a threat to the US because it had WMD and none were found. The war turned into a bloody occupation with US citizens being killed and or wounded almost daily. Also ex-members of his adminstration state that there was no connection of what happened during an attacked in the US with that country.

Wouldn't the Republicans and conservatives be writing articles of Impeachment right now?

Sounds like a double standard to me...
Click to expand...


Or politics...
 
I think that the issue was the timing.

I don't recall Dems challenging the justification which was about the same as what Bush used for the invasion.
 
cons would have complained about Clinton's fiscal irreponsibility, the death of soldiers and would have denounced his excercise in nation building
libs would have said it was about freedom and that they're helping poor iraqis.
cons would have said iraqis should have personal responsibilities and take care of saddam themselves, that the US taxpayer should not pay for them.

etc etc etc
 
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
cons would have complained about Clinton's fiscal irreponsibility, the death of soldiers and would have denounced his excercise in nation building
libs would have said it was about freedom and that they're helping poor iraqis.
cons would have said iraqis should have personal responsibilities and take care of saddam themselves, that the US taxpayer should not pay for them.

etc etc etc
Click to expand...

I don't think the Republicans would just talk.
 
I fail to understand how the invasion of Iraq would be any less stupid if it had been done by a Democrat.

-Robert
 
Not that it would change your perception but there was a short outrage here in Germany - but after a while it was just: Look the Americans do anything - even kill ppl - to divert attention from other issues.
The difference with Bush: Everyone here saw his worst fears confirmed - pretty much anybody I know was thinking if Bush is elected there will be lots of wars or at least alot bad will be happening - we all know what happened...

 
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
If Clinton had invaded an country using the justification that that country was a threat to the US because it had WMD and none were found. The war turned into a bloody occupation with US citizens being killed and or wounded almost daily. Also ex-members of his adminstration state that there was no connection of what happened during an attacked in the US with that country.

Wouldn't the Republicans and conservatives be writing articles of Impeachment right now?

Sounds like a double standard to me...
Click to expand...

Slow day, huh?
🙂

Depends. What country we talking about?
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
If Clinton had invaded an country using the justification that that country was a threat to the US because it had WMD and none were found. The war turned into a bloody occupation with US citizens being killed and or wounded almost daily. Also ex-members of his adminstration state that there was no connection of what happened during an attacked in the US with that country.

Wouldn't the Republicans and conservatives be writing articles of Impeachment right now?

Sounds like a double standard to me...
Click to expand...

Slow day, huh?
🙂

Depends. What country we talking about?
Click to expand...

What?

 
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
If Clinton had invaded an country using the justification that that country was a threat to the US because it had WMD and none were found. The war turned into a bloody occupation with US citizens being killed and or wounded almost daily. Also ex-members of his adminstration state that there was no connection of what happened during an attacked in the US with that country.

Wouldn't the Republicans and conservatives be writing articles of Impeachment right now?

Sounds like a double standard to me...
Click to expand...

Slow day, huh?
🙂

Depends. What country we talking about?
Click to expand...

What?
Click to expand...

If Clinton had invaded an country( Put the Country you are referring to here) using the justification that that country was a threat to the US because it had WMD and none were found. The war turned into a bloody occupation with US citizens being killed and or wounded almost daily. Also ex-members of his adminstration state that there was no connection of what happened during an attacked in the US with that country.


Is that better than "What country we talking about?"




 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Clinton used the same justification when he bombed Iraq and I don't recall any outrage.
Click to expand...

Now.......killing some people in a factory supposedly making WMD is what you expect from US foreign policy, democrat or republican.

Invading a country with no plan (or very naive plans) for what to happen afterwards (Afghanistan and Iraq) with consequences for millions of people is quite another story. Anyone will get a bashing for that, specially when he can't seem to get the justification right in first or second try.
 
I heard Clinton's bombing actually got the WMDs! 😀

(Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

😀
 
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
I heard Clinton's bombing actually got the WMDs! 😀

(Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

😀
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the Bowfinger angle....😛

Try to read it again and state the "bombing actually got the WMDs" 😉 Oh, and pray tell how anyone would know what if anything was destroyed...you know...since they never actually followed up to see.😛 Clinton willingly admitted that fact.

Meh - WMDs or no WMDs - I supported the removal of Saddam in 1998 and was upset that Clinton didn't do more, and I support Bush's removal of Saddam now. The issue should have been resolved years ago but I guess the oil for mone..I mean..food program was too good for others to actually do something about Saddam.

CkG
 
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
If Clinton had invaded an country using the justification that that country was a threat to the US because it had WMD and none were found. The war turned into a bloody occupation with US citizens being killed and or wounded almost daily. Also ex-members of his adminstration state that there was no connection of what happened during an attacked in the US with that country.

Wouldn't the Republicans and conservatives be writing articles of Impeachment right now?

Sounds like a double standard to me...
Click to expand...

I dunno,.remember haiti? He just got really freakin lucky.

 
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
I heard Clinton's bombing actually got the WMDs! 😀

(Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

😀
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the Bowfinger angle....😛

Try to read it again and state the "bombing actually got the WMDs" 😉 Oh, and pray tell how anyone would know what if anything was destroyed...you know...since they never actually followed up to see.😛 Clinton willingly admitted that fact.

Meh - WMDs or no WMDs - I supported the removal of Saddam in 1998 and was upset that Clinton didn't do more, and I support Bush's removal of Saddam now. The issue should have been resolved years ago but I guess the oil for mone..I mean..food program was too good for others to actually do something about Saddam.

CkG
Click to expand...

No I still stand by what I said, CkG... read the article

Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign.
Click to expand...

Next thing you probably say is that those were Iraqi handguns, Cad 😉 😉

Maybe you don't care that you were lied to about weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda links, but I do... since this little war was poorly planned and costing us billions, as well as thousaands of lives.
 
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
I heard Clinton's bombing actually got the WMDs! 😀

(Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

😀
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the Bowfinger angle....😛

Try to read it again and state the "bombing actually got the WMDs" 😉 Oh, and pray tell how anyone would know what if anything was destroyed...you know...since they never actually followed up to see.😛 Clinton willingly admitted that fact.

Meh - WMDs or no WMDs - I supported the removal of Saddam in 1998 and was upset that Clinton didn't do more, and I support Bush's removal of Saddam now. The issue should have been resolved years ago but I guess the oil for mone..I mean..food program was too good for others to actually do something about Saddam.

CkG
Click to expand...

No I still stand by what I said, CkG... read the article

Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign.
Click to expand...

Next thing you probably say is that those were Iraqi handguns, Cad 😉 😉

Maybe you don't care that you were lied to about weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda links, but I do... since this little war was poorly planned and costing us billions, as well as thousaands of lives.
Click to expand...

That's not what you posted in your other post. You posted about the 1998 "bombing actually got the WMDs" but what you posted did NOT support that. The link losely supports that but not fully as it *may* have played a part...in "stages".

And one must consider that all of this is hindsight since after the 1998 bombing campaign the damage wasn't researched or followed up on. And no, your assertions of LIES and poor planning is partisan BS at best. Ofcourse people now want to say they were the only issues since they haven't been found but it was a LARGE body of intelligence that pointed towards Saddam having stockpiles of such weapons...but yeah we'll heap it all on Bush since he actually acted on the intelligence instead of waiting for it to become a "law enforcement" issue😉

There are no two ways about this: Saddam was continually in material breach of the cease-fire agreement and that alone allowed for military action to remove his sorry ass - which is why I supported Clinton's bombings(although I wish he had done more) and why I supported this war. Saddam needed to be removed - and he was.

CkG
 
Originally posted by: B00ne
Not that it would change your perception but there was a short outrage here in Germany - but after a while it was just: Look the Americans do anything - even kill ppl - to divert attention from other issues.
The difference with Bush: Everyone here saw his worst fears confirmed - pretty much anybody I know was thinking if Bush is elected there will be lots of wars or at least alot bad will be happening - we all know what happened...
Click to expand...

So they are blaiming 9/11 on Pres. Bush?

Perhaps you need to get some new, smarter friends.



 
And one must consider that all of this is hindsight since after the 1998 bombing campaign the damage wasn't researched or followed up on. And no, your assertions of LIES and poor planning is partisan BS at best.
CkG
Click to expand...

Wow you are thick...

I suggest rereading the past fifty threads about the situation in Iraq, especially about the looting, and the Iraqi's complaining of lack of water, electricity ones.

237 misleading statements about Iraq
All of them well documented and verifiable.

I could build an entire page worth of proof that any rational non-partisan would agree with me with that Iraq was poorly planned, and the administration clearly lied. But I realize it would all be pointless excercise in futility since, Cad, you being the forums leading Bush apologist would dismiss anyway despite mountains of evidence.

I think I have better things to do with my time.

 
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
And one must consider that all of this is hindsight since after the 1998 bombing campaign the damage wasn't researched or followed up on. And no, your assertions of LIES and poor planning is partisan BS at best.
CkG
Click to expand...

Wow you are thick...


I suggest rereading the past fifty threads about the situation in Iraq, especially about the looting, and the Iraqi's complaining of lack of water, electricity ones.

237 misleading statements about Iraq
All of them well documented and verifiable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and just ignore that things were immediately attended to after the WAR settled down so things could be worked on.
How many schools are back up and fully attended now one year later? How is that electricity one year later? How is that water one year later? I guess we must have had a pretty decent plan to be able to accomplish these things in less than a year. but yeah - things were real great before we got there and we destroyed it all - right?

How dense are you - to believe that we had a "poor plan"?
rolleye.gif
You can bleat about this or that but overall it has been quite a successful campaign and rebuilding. Sure - things could have gone better but nothing is perfect or can follow exactly as planned. Bleat on with your partisan tripe though...

CkG
 
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Wouldn't the Republicans and conservatives be writing articles of Impeachment right now?
Click to expand...

So lets get this straight, we are to right articles of impeachment ,

right now against whom?

What a silly post!

rolleye.gif
 
I keep wondering about what the Republicans would do if Clinton had gotten the US in the mess in Iraq. Would they be trying to stop the release of photos of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners?
Would they say that the abuse of prisoners was no worse than Frat boy initiation rites?
 
Originally posted by: chess9
I fail to understand how the invasion of Iraq would be any less stupid if it had been done by a Democrat.

-Robert
Click to expand...
Game.

Set.

Match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top