• 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.

If Bush lied, then so did Clinton/ Kerry/ Gore/ Albright

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
so did Clinton/ Kerry/ Gore/ Albright rush into war without an exit strategy, get 1000+ soldiers killed, give $500,000,000 and 700,000lbs of explosives to insurgents?

i think that's the difference
I dunno, but it could have moved 9/11 from NYC to Baghdad. I'd rather see 3500 dead servicemen(even if it included me) than the same amount in Civilians, FDNY, and NYPD. Think of how the world could have changed if it werent for one blow job.....
 
Well, Train, seeing as how the Iraqis had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, your connection between them and the Bush Admin's reasons for war are very much the same distortion...

Repeat after me- Communists burned the Reichstag! Say it, out loud, over and over again until you believe it...

Much as the Nazis used that incident, the Bush Admin has used 9/11- w/o that tragic event, and the fearmongering around it, the invasion of iraq would have remained unsupportable among the american population- rightfully so.

By now, the inspections of Iraq would have shown compliance with UN resolutions, sanctions would have ended, and the Iraqis would be pumping enough oil to depress prices and oil company profits worldwide- who'd want that?

Oh, yeh, we'd be a whole lot richer, too, and thousands of young americans wouldn't be dead or shot up, either...
 
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
so did Clinton/ Kerry/ Gore/ Albright rush into war without an exit strategy, get 1000+ soldiers killed, give $500,000,000 and 700,000lbs of explosives to insurgents?

i think that's the difference
I dunno, but it could have moved 9/11 from NYC to Baghdad. I'd rather see 3500 dead servicemen(even if it included me) than the same amount in Civilians, FDNY, and NYPD. Think of how the world could have changed if it werent for one blow job.....

You mean 3500 serviceman and 15,000-25,000 Iraqi civilians? Oh ya, 911 wasn't Iraq, but go ahead and blend them into one large group of evil Arabs like Bush and Cheney do.

Blaming Clinton is getting old, your swallowing the revised history just like Rush wants you too, grats on your lack of independent thinking.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Lies and distortions.


So, nothing changed in the intelligence community between 1998 and 2003?


This is a BS thread and this crap has been shot down many times before. Go do some searching.

I have quotes from Kerry talking about there being WMD from 2003.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by: Pliablemoose
I really think the fear of claims that he was trying to put the Lewinski scandal in the background was one of the factors that kept Clinton from more direct action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Instead of the Lewinski Affair or Lewinski Scandal, I like to refer to it as the Clinton Missile Crisis.

LOL now some would take that wrong. When the woman that said Clinton well did things he shouldn't have and she could prove it and if you remember the news, Talk shows were all talking about moles, Scares, Leaning to one side or the other and I told my wife you know it would be funny as you know what if he had the smallest humm missile she had ever seen and you know how that turned out
 
Originally posted by: Chadder007
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-


"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons
of mass destruction programs."
-Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
-John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-


"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation
... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued
deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the
threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


Umm, check me on this:

GWB is president of the US right?

GWB led the US in the invasion of Iraq saying that Saddam had WMD and was a
threat to the US. right?

It turns out that Saddam did not have WMD and was not a threat to the US right?

GWB should lose his job for getting his country in this mess.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
so did Clinton/ Kerry/ Gore/ Albright rush into war without an exit strategy, get 1000+ soldiers killed, give $500,000,000 and 700,000lbs of explosives to insurgents?

i think that's the difference
I dunno, but it could have moved 9/11 from NYC to Baghdad. I'd rather see 3500 dead servicemen(even if it included me) than the same amount in Civilians, FDNY, and NYPD. Think of how the world could have changed if it werent for one blow job.....

You mean 3500 serviceman and 15,000-25,000 Iraqi civilians? Oh ya, 911 wasn't Iraq, but go ahead and blend them into one large group of evil Arabs like Bush and Cheney do.

Blaming Clinton is getting old, your swallowing the revised history just like Rush wants you too, grats on your lack of independent thinking.
no, Al-Queda wasnt instantly magnetized to Iraq as soon as we got there, and no, there arent any groups in Iraq now that claim ties with Al-Queda, who also happened to claim to have assasinated 50 newly trained personell, no, none of that would have happened If it was Clinton in the whitehouse

:roll: think a little deeper before the knee jerk.
 
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Kerry told the truth....he is a Vietnam war criminal. Killed children and burned villages. 😕
Spoken like a blind man who wouldn't want to know the truth if it bit him on the ass. Kerry did not say he personally killed children and burned villages.

If you even care to know what he said, here's the transcript of John Kerry's statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. The first few paragraphs define what he actually said and where the neocon demagogues get thier snipped sound bites for their lies:
Mr. Kerry: I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
He was describing the war crimes and attrocities reported and discussed by a number of Vietnam vets who did participate in such activities. Nowhere does he say he was speaking for himself, alone.

If you want a better dose of reality, try reading his entire testimony and do a little homework to learn how the U.S. government lied to its troops, and all of its citizens, about the facts that got us into Viet Nam, about why we were there, and what kinds of atrocities were committed by our own troops in our name. Mi Lai was not an isolated incident... Or haven't you heard of Mi Lai, either?

The parallels between our actions in Vietnam and Iraq go far deeper than concerns about quagmires. They go to the same kinds of lies by our leaders in attempting to justify their actions, the same callous disregard for the consequenses of poorly planned actions, the same kinds of coverups and lies to conceal their deceit and far more.

George W. Bush and his adminstration are a national disaster and a national tragedy. We will be paying for their deceit and crimes for generations. 🙁
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: Chadder007
I love how you guys can keep ignoring what the Dems have said in the past.....all of the same.

I love how you cut and paste right wing mass e-mails aimed at misleading weak minded Republicans here in attempt to start a flame war. Politicians say lot of things, and some look like they back your side when they are out of context. Do you think Bush cannot be quoted out of context? Shall we make lame ass threads like you?

"We cannot win it (war on terror)" <--- OMFG Bush said we will lose the War on terror!!!!!!!!!!

Kind of childish huh?


What, do you honestly think we will ever get rid of all terrorists? Dont be ignorant, he didnt say we will lose. We will never win the war on terror, however, in Iraq and Afganistan we may. There will always be terrorists.


Originally posted by: arsbanned
No, YOU don't get it. The other players you mention were willing to allow sanctions and the combined efforts of the World community a chance to work before pulling the trigger. Bush, OTOH, rushed to war, was determined to attack Iraq before stealing...er..assuming the Presidency.

We went to the UN, and France and Germany kept shooting the resolution down because they wanted their oil for food agreement to keep going. Bush said it best when he said we dont need a permission slip to protect our country.
 
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Originally posted by: conjur
Lies and distortions.


So, nothing changed in the intelligence community between 1998 and 2003?


This is a BS thread and this crap has been shot down many times before. Go do some searching.

LOL at saying actual quotes are lies.:roll:

No, I'm calling your thread title a lie.


Now, answer my question:"

So, nothing changed in the intelligence community between 1998 and 2003?
David Kay has flatly stated that U.S. and other national intelligence agencies with which the U.S. has close ties essentially got it wrong on Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction. Kay traced the main failure to December 1998. Then the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) looking for weapons, toxic stockpiles, and missile delivery systems since 1991 was forced to withdraw because of the U.S.-UK Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign. Suddenly, the on-the-ground eyes and ears on which the U.S. intelligence community had relied since Operation Desert Storm vanished, leaving only easily spoofed optical and communications ?spies in the skies.?
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/ite...id=694&amp;issue_id=35
And why was the bombing campaign begun?

Because Saddam has refused access to the sites by the inspectors. They were not allowed to do their job.

VERY different from 2003.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Lies and distortions.


So, nothing changed in the intelligence community between 1998 and 2003?


This is a BS thread and this crap has been shot down many times before. Go do some searching.
I have quotes from Kerry talking about there being WMD from 2003.
:cookie:
 
Originally posted by: drpootums
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: Chadder007
I love how you guys can keep ignoring what the Dems have said in the past.....all of the same.

I love how you cut and paste right wing mass e-mails aimed at misleading weak minded Republicans here in attempt to start a flame war. Politicians say lot of things, and some look like they back your side when they are out of context. Do you think Bush cannot be quoted out of context? Shall we make lame ass threads like you?

"We cannot win it (war on terror)" <--- OMFG Bush said we will lose the War on terror!!!!!!!!!!

Kind of childish huh?


What, do you honestly think we will ever get rid of all terrorists? Dont be ignorant, he didnt say we will lose. We will never win the war on terror, however, in Iraq and Afganistan we may. There will always be terrorists.


Originally posted by: arsbanned
No, YOU don't get it. The other players you mention were willing to allow sanctions and the combined efforts of the World community a chance to work before pulling the trigger. Bush, OTOH, rushed to war, was determined to attack Iraq before stealing...er..assuming the Presidency.

We went to the UN, and France and Germany kept shooting the resolution down because they wanted their oil for food agreement to keep going. Bush said it best when he said we dont need a permission slip to protect our country.

Yet no protection has been gained. Iraq was not a threat and the renewed UN INspections were proving it.

The biggest flaw with this arguement(OP) is that the Clinton Admin had to rely on outdated Intel. Intel that was already very questionable, because after the UN Inspectors were pulled out of Iraq Clinton bombed the Hell out of suspected sites in Iraq for 3-4 days straight. There was no way to verify the extent of the damage incurred by the various sites, but it certainly appears that they were very successful.

Bush had new Intel from the renewed UN Inspections and all that Intel was pointing to the Fact that Iraq had Nothing. Yet he pushed ahead as if the opposite were true.

In short, the Clinton Admin was using the known Facts up until UN Inspectors were pulled out. They had no choice, but to assume that their Strikes were unsuccessful due to a lack of ability to verify. OTOH, Bush had New Intel that clearly showed that the Clinton Strikes were very successful and that the Old Intel was unreliable. Bush could have saved Lives and Money just by letting the UN Inspectors finish their job.

edit: spelling
 
ya, let the intel inspectors finish their job...when? Like 10 years from now after we have been attacked a couple more times? They were getting nothing done...
 
Originally posted by: drpootums
ya, let the intel inspectors finish their job...when? Like 10 years from now after we have been attacked a couple more times? They were getting nothing done...

A couple *more* times?

Iraq never attacked us before! How could they attack us *more* times?
 
Originally posted by: drpootums
they supported the terrorists, and so in my opinion they are just as guilty as al quida

They did? 😕....You must have missed the memo.

But since you think they did....

Then you are for taking out Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, United Arab Emerants....and so on?

 
Originally posted by: drpootums
ya, let the intel inspectors finish their job...when? Like 10 years from now after we have been attacked a couple more times? They were getting nothing done...

They got plenty done, like disarming Iraq.
 
Well the ones that want to use Kerry's statement but if Kerry is not telling the truth then who cares what he said before the senate. Harvey you said Kerry did not say he personally killed children and burned villages. Yes he did, They have played it enough coming out of his own mouth, Also if you remember the vietnam veterans that he had with him was later found out to have lied and most was never even in vietnam and some were never in the service
 
Originally posted by: drpootums
you guys are such a fan of proof, then give me proof that Iraq didnt send their WMD's to Iran or some other country


LOL...to Iran. Apparantely you don't know about Iraq and Iran's love fest. I guess the Neocon notion is that we now have to invade Iran to find them...but wait...while we were running in Iraq losing tons of explosives, Iran is quietly developing nuclear weapons.......
 
Originally posted by: drpootums
ya, let the intel inspectors finish their job...when? Like 10 years from now after we have been attacked a couple more times? They were getting nothing done...

When is the last time Iraq attacked us? When is the last time they attack anyone? Ignorance is bliss huh?
 
Back
Top