yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Clinton, president of two terms, a foreign policy nonentity. How rather convenient a finding for the latest conspiracy theory. Of course, other than the misguided musings a bunch of tinfoil beanie AT P&N posters, the facts say otherwise.
Statement By The President: The Iraq Liberation Act (October 31, 1998):
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
BLAST THAT EVIL PRESIDENT CLINTON AND HIS ILLEGAL MEDDLING IN ANOTHER COUNTRY'S AFFAIRS! I mean, personally I rather liked the guy but you guys need to be consistent, you know? Please, let the uproar against this outrageous statement by Mr. Clinton commence.
Or why don't we examine what Congress thought of Iraq in 1998?
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (PL 105-338):
The Congress makes the following findings:
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
THOSE BASTARD MEMBERS OF CONGRESS! Why, we should have listened to poor Mr. Hussein all along. Instead we oddly followed the natural direction that ten-plus years of noncooperation leads and ousted a terrible dictator. Shame on President Bush. :roll:
This thread isn't about Clinton. You people really need to cut the Clinton umbilical cord. And for the first time in his life George Bush needs to stand up like a man and take responsibility for his actions. Tell the American people he was wrong about the WMD threat, the prime reason he used to justify his invasion of Iraq. The only reason the American people, in the Bush administration's own estimation, would accept for invading Iraq. So they made it all up based on regurgitated intelligence to trick simpletons later into believing that it was the intelligence, not their fault.
:roll:
:roll:
You sir are correct. Look at the thread on Bush dropping the gay amendment. The legions of fanbois who were salivating at the mouth have so conveniently ignored this. It's pathetic the levels of cowardice his disciples have exhibited.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Sorta like the left has done with Medi-care prescription drugs? Oh wait, A *gasp* Republican actually got that done. Something the left could only chatter about to stir the old people into voting.
Hehe - too funny(yet sad that another entitlement that the left wanted was added).
CsG
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
You're the person who initially mentioned President Clinton in your two posts on the first page of this thread, genius. Then the rest of your conspiracy theory ilk latched onto the idea that Iraq was in compliance all throughout the nineties when anyone who can READ should know better. And guess who was the president of the United States during that decade?
I know you're a huge fan of rewriting history the way you'd like to remember it, but the rest of us realize a look at policy during those ten years is indicative of the situation in Iraq during that time. Try not to cast others as simpletons when you best evidence of a neocon conspiracy is a phantom 8000 pages of a report. :roll:
Wait, are you talking about the Medicare bill that the GOP passed in the middle of the night and which was so full of Ugly Mutant Pork for the drug companies even McCain was appalled? Nah, didn't think so.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
What, are you suggesting the left wanted even more Pork for Big Pharma than the Ugly Mutants came up with?
Well, Saddam did destroy his WMD's which is what the sanctions were meant to accomplish. The 12 years were unnecessary sanctions followed by unnecessary invasion, which is followed by realization that the sanctions and the invasion were unnecessary. Hopefully it will take less than 12 years to realize that these big plans for Iraq are nothing more than a pipe dream.
Clinton was a foreign policy non-entity, because he largely kept the foreign policy on cruise control for his 8 years and concentrated on the domestic issues. He didn't have the guts to lift the sanctions, but he did have the brains not to invade Iraq.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
He had the "brains" not to capture or kill bin Laden either. Look where that got us.
If Saddam destroyed his WMDs, all he had to do was cooperate and provide actual proof. Instead he was obstructionist in nature, harrassed the inspection team, blocked access to inspection sites arbitrarily and regularly, and generally refused to comply with the sanctions.
Whine and bitch about Bush all you want. Demonstrate your blatant bias and partisan ethic by failing to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who really deserved it. Show us your true colors. They are readily apparent.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
That's dishonest, as has been widely demonstrated here before. The fact that they're parroting known lies has never stopped the Bush apologists before, however, so carry on.
See above. By the way, how do you prove a negative? Please prove to me that you do not have WMDs (Weapons of Mass Delusion).
Tastes like Chicken in every pot, meet kettle.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
What the left wanted was a program that actually helped seniors instead of big pharma. Bush's scam largely left out the "helping seniors" part. As you love to whine, it's just another wealth transfer scam, transferring wealth from middle class Americans to the drug companies.
But that's all off-topic for this thread.
Provide documentation, a site where it happened, and the remnants of the destruction.
If the known stockpiles of WMD were destroyed Saddam had three options to prove it.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
It hasn't been widely demonstrated anywhere. It's a simple fact. Clinton should have taken care of business and did not. What's dishonest is plugging your fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowledge that truth.
See above. By the way, how do you prove a negative? Please prove to me that you do not have WMDs (Weapons of Mass Delusion).[/quote]
Talk about dishonesty.
Nobody was asking him to prove a negative. He was being asked to provide proof he had destroyed weapons that were known to exist according to the reports the Iraqis themselves supplied to the UN. He had a bunch of anthrax and supposedly destroyed that. OK, prove it. He had known quantities of VX that he supposedly destoyed. OK, prove it. Saddam was known to be a stickler for documentation about everything - legal or not - yet he didn't document destroying these WMDs?
Now explain how that's proving a negative?
Tastes like Chicken in every pot, meet kettle.
[/quote]
How so very unclever of you. :roll:
So you disagree with Clinton's policies because he didn't see the necessity of a full scale invasion of Iraq. And by the looks of things over there after Bush's policies Clinton's was the more prudent policy. There was no need to invade Iraq then and there was no need to invade Iraq now.
What exactly was the urgent reason that forced Bush to attack Iraq on March 19, 2002?
And if you support the invasion so strongly why don't you take a trip down from Canada and join up? I hear they could use everyone they can get.
You can Google the address of your nearest U.S. recruiting office.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
It is definitely true that the U.S. got the report first, and that we gave the U.N. only part of the report. This was reported at the time. IIRC, it is accurate that we held back several thousand pages, but I can't recall a more precise number.
I think the word "intercepted" is accurate in one sense of the word, but often suggests a covert act. I don't believe that is the case, but I honestly don't know the background about how and why we got the report first. Until the OP, I don't remember seeing anything "factual" about what was in the missing pages (although many speculated it documented our past dealings with Hussein). It will be interesting to see if anyone else corroborates the OP's version of the story.
And when will Wolfowitz and Feith be exposed as being the root causes behind the falsification of intelligence?
This administration has managed to con the MSM into believe the CIA was at fault, partly, and in accepting that the war was just in order to "spread democracy".
The arrogance and deceipt in this administration knows no bounds.
This administration has managed to con the MSM into believe the CIA was at fault, partly, and in accepting that the war was just in order to "spread democracy".
The arrogance and deceipt in this administration knows no bounds.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
And if you simply DO NOT have such documentation, what then? What if they destroyed the WMDs, but did not keep track of where and when? Is it OK to attack another country, killing tens of thousands of innocent people and wasting $200 billion plus, due to sloppy paperwork?
Again, this has been thoroughly hashed out here many times before. The inarguable fact is that Iraq could not produce documentation it did not have.
The outgoing Clinton administration stressed to the incoming Bush administration the newest most dangerous threat was the threat of terrorist attacks from the likes of Osama bin Laden. Don't forget, the millenium attacks, unlike /.11 on Bush's watch, were stopped by the Clinton administration. And without new acts that usurp our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The Bush administration decided to ignore the warnings and instead concentrated on the right wing's favorite non-working military pork endeavor, the Glo-Coat missile shield. Good thing they were working on that when the Twin Towers fell. That even made the useless fantasy missile shield's billions worth every penny. :roll:
Saddam destroyed the weapons he was told to destroy. He provided 20,000 pages of documentation. The Bush administration redacted 8,000 pages in a CYA maneuver. Bush got his illegal invasion, no WMD was found. And if you read the latest news there were NO WMD transported out of Iraq either.
It was all a lie. Get it?
No WMD. Period. It was destroyed. Bush cherry picked rehashed intelligence to justify an illegal, unnecearry, unprovoked invasion of Iraq which has resulted in...well, you read the news don't you?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Then there were other methods, such as showing the inspectors the actual site of destruction and permitting them to test ground samples for residues.
There were other options, or did you ignore that part of his statement?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 386
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter