Is this statement true or false?

[XMan]

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well it is at least partially true. The only lie would be to imply US action in Iraq had a singular mission.

The second section first phrase is absolute gospel . . . the rest of the second section is suspect.

 

[LunarRay]

How can there be six votes and only three people posted...?
Who can know what was really in the mind of the statement maker...
I think bush ordered the troops... but, against what... this I find suspect.
Well... I find everything Bush says... a bit suspect...now a days...

 

[Martin]

its mostly lies.

Truth:
1. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States,

Lies:
1. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs
2. Their purpose is to protect the ... the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Emprty language.
1. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Technically a truth, but war was not needed to stop SH from using weapons he apperantly didn't have.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
How can there be six votes and only three people posted...?
Who can know what was really in the mind of the statement maker...
I think bush ordered the troops... but, against what... this I find suspect.
Well... I find everything Bush says... a bit suspect...now a days...

That's odd.

Where did I say George W. Bush said it?

:Q

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yes, it would be interesting to see who voted which way - LunyRay

Nice poll X-man

CkG

<- voted True

 

[Zipp]

The person who said that X-man also said this.

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: LunarRay
How can there be six votes and only three people posted...?
Who can know what was really in the mind of the statement maker...
I think bush ordered the troops... but, against what... this I find suspect.
Well... I find everything Bush says... a bit suspect...now a days...

That's odd.

Where did I say George W. Bush said it?

:Q

 

[Moonbeam]

"Earlier today, I (Depends on who is speaking)ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. But civilian targets were also hit)..They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs (Theri mission might have been to go to the moon. Their mission and what they did are two different things since there were no WMD) and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. (The neighbors were not asking for us to do this. Many asked us not to) There was no threat after the gulf war)

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, (Accord ing to whom. It wasn't in my national interest. It was an illegal war. and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East (Israel) and around the world. (Who is doing the deciding what is in whose interest?)

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." (Bugs Bunny musn't be allowed to either. One was as real as the other)

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: LunarRay
How can there be six votes and only three people posted...?
Who can know what was really in the mind of the statement maker...
I think bush ordered the troops... but, against what... this I find suspect.
Well... I find everything Bush says... a bit suspect...now a days...

That's odd.

Where did I say George W. Bush said it?

:Q

Inferential Calculus. To my knowledge the events you mentioned in your statement occurred on one occasion.

 

[DealMonkey]

X-Man: Are you trying to connect what Clinton said (and did) and now what Bush said (and did)? If so, what's your point exactly?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: LunarRay
How can there be six votes and only three people posted...?
Who can know what was really in the mind of the statement maker...
I think bush ordered the troops... but, against what... this I find suspect.
Well... I find everything Bush says... a bit suspect...now a days...

That's odd.

Where did I say George W. Bush said it?

:Q

Inferential Calculus. To my knowledge the events you mentioned in your statement occurred on one occasion.

You're correct, they did occur on one occasion.

For your information, the quote can be attributed to William Jefferson Clinton, on the occasion of December 16, 1998.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yes, it would be interesting to see who voted which way - LunyRay

Nice poll X-man

CkG

<- voted True

I voted false because if any part is false the statement cannot be true... like sorta pregnant

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yes, it would be interesting to see who voted which way - LunyRay

Nice poll X-man

CkG

<- voted True

I voted false because if any part is false the statement cannot be true... like sorta pregnant

Guess that Clinton should answer some questions then. you know, to be consistant.

DM - Yes - it is relevant - both reasons for attacking a "sovereign nation" were similar. The actual intel details might be different but we never saw that intel Clinton used - did we? We just ate it up - no questions asked. How we "attacked" makes little difference in questioning the REASONS for attacking.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: LunarRay
How can there be six votes and only three people posted...?
Who can know what was really in the mind of the statement maker...
I think bush ordered the troops... but, against what... this I find suspect.
Well... I find everything Bush says... a bit suspect...now a days...

That's odd.

Where did I say George W. Bush said it?

:Q

Inferential Calculus. To my knowledge the events you mentioned in your statement occurred on one occasion.

You're correct, they did occur on one occasion.

For your information, the quote can be attributed to William Jefferson Clinton, on the occasion of December 16, 1998.

Well then the events occurred on two occasions ... and I refer to the events of this year.. The statement may have occurred on one occasion... but, surely the events of this year have occurred... I'd think..

 

[Zipp]

Hey that same guy said this to:


"Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. "

"I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. That is not a threat. "

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yes, it would be interesting to see who voted which way - LunyRay

Nice poll X-man

CkG

<- voted True

I voted false because if any part is false the statement cannot be true... like sorta pregnant

Guess that Clinton should answer some questions then. you know, to be consistant.

DM - Yes - it is relevant - both reasons for attacking a "sovereign nation" were similar. The actual intel details might be different but we never saw that intel Clinton used - did we? We just ate it up - no questions asked. How we "attacked" makes little difference in questioning the REASONS for attacking.

CkG

Impeach Clinton too? Too late... he's outta office... But, what is the point? I'd like to participate but, am not sure if we are talking about clinton or bush..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zipp
Hey that same guy said this to:


"Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. "

"I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. That is not a threat. "

That warmonger! :| How dare he be so arrogant! Alienating allies and the world like that. That guy is a disaster!!! :|



CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yes, it would be interesting to see who voted which way - LunyRay

Nice poll X-man

CkG

<- voted True

I voted false because if any part is false the statement cannot be true... like sorta pregnant

Guess that Clinton should answer some questions then. you know, to be consistant.

DM - Yes - it is relevant - both reasons for attacking a "sovereign nation" were similar. The actual intel details might be different but we never saw that intel Clinton used - did we? We just ate it up - no questions asked. How we "attacked" makes little difference in questioning the REASONS for attacking.

CkG

Perhaps you ate it right up, but it certainly doesn't mean everyone did.

Basically, you're justifying what Bush did by pointing to what Clinton did? Wow, that takes some guts coming from such a die-hard conservative. Maybe they were both wrong? Ever consider that? I don't really see how tying Bush to Clinton is supposed to make everything OK? But maybe in your confused logic there's some method to the madness...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yes, it would be interesting to see who voted which way - LunyRay

Nice poll X-man

CkG

<- voted True

I voted false because if any part is false the statement cannot be true... like sorta pregnant

Guess that Clinton should answer some questions then. you know, to be consistant.

DM - Yes - it is relevant - both reasons for attacking a "sovereign nation" were similar. The actual intel details might be different but we never saw that intel Clinton used - did we? We just ate it up - no questions asked. How we "attacked" makes little difference in questioning the REASONS for attacking.

CkG

Perhaps you ate it right up, but it certainly doesn't mean everyone did.

Basically, you're justifying what Bush did by pointing to what Clinton did? Wow, that takes some guts coming from such a die-hard conservative. Maybe they were both wrong? Ever consider that? I don't really see how tying Bush to Clinton is supposed to make everything OK? But maybe in your confused logic there's some method to the madness...

Well there was an obvious intel failure when clinton bombed an drug factory. I dont recall anyone questioning why he allowed this intel failure to occur. Surely innocent died during the 4 days of bombing during desert fox. there was no outcry then, why all the sudden has there been a change?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yes, it would be interesting to see who voted which way - LunyRay

Nice poll X-man

CkG

<- voted True

I voted false because if any part is false the statement cannot be true... like sorta pregnant

Guess that Clinton should answer some questions then. you know, to be consistant.

DM - Yes - it is relevant - both reasons for attacking a "sovereign nation" were similar. The actual intel details might be different but we never saw that intel Clinton used - did we? We just ate it up - no questions asked. How we "attacked" makes little difference in questioning the REASONS for attacking.

CkG

Perhaps you ate it right up, but it certainly doesn't mean everyone did.

Basically, you're justifying what Bush did by pointing to what Clinton did? Wow, that takes some guts coming from such a die-hard conservative. Maybe they were both wrong? Ever consider that? I don't really see how tying Bush to Clinton is supposed to make everything OK? But maybe in your confused logic there's some method to the madness...

Nope- I'm not justifying anything and I said that in the other threads I've made this connection. I'm just saying that if you question Bush on his REASONS then you best question Clinton too. Sure - maybe they were both wrong(don't think so) but I then ask, where was/is the rabid questioning of Clinton? I do believe I was ridiculed for questioning Clinton using the same wild accusations you people toss at Bush. This whole things goes to show that all this questioning and wild accusations are politically motivated - not neccessarily substance motivated.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

When Clinton said it, it was likely true. This isn't a Bush=bad, Clinton=good post, it is increasingly apparent that Clinton's actions likely destroyed what little WMD SH had. Maybe Bush is just behind the times?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
When Clinton said it, it was likely true. This isn't a Bush=bad, Clinton=good post, it is increasingly apparent that Clinton's actions likely destroyed what little WMD SH had. Maybe Bush is just behind the times?

Buahahaha!!!!! Clinton destroyed it all? With 350 "kinda smart", "women and children killing" bombs? Wow his intel must have been good! So why all the questioning of our intelligence now? Not too many changes since then. Infact Tenet was appointed by Clinton - you think maybe he should have told Bush, Blix, and the UN that Clinton destroyed em all?

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Bush invaded Iraq under the provision of UN Charter Article 51... the defense of the US... and that an exigent circumstance existed which required immediate intervention. OK... Clinton did what ever he did.. under whatever authority he did it.. OK... Back to the present.. where is the proof of the exigent circumstance and the associated WMD and all the rest. If they were both operating (Bush and Clinton) under the same conditions at different times I'd expect the same proof... Clinton did not invade with the intent to dethrone SH as did Bush... but, that is irrelevant... what is relevant is that Bush is President and the issue of his actions are at the bar of justice... let the pieces fall where they may... but, let them be true pieces and let them fall..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Bush invaded Iraq under the provision of UN Charter Article 51... the defense of the US... and that an exigent circumstance existed which required immediate intervention. OK... Clinton did what ever he did.. under whatever authority he did it.. OK... Back to the present.. where is the proof of the exigent circumstance and the associated WMD and all the rest. If they were both operating (Bush and Clinton) under the same conditions at different times I'd expect the same proof... Clinton did not invade with the intent to dethrone SH as did Bush... but, that is irrelevant... what is relevant is that Bush is President and the issue of his actions are at the bar of justice... let the pieces fall where they may... but, let them be true pieces and let them fall..

Agreed, we need to make sure our intel was up to snuff. Clinton is not immune to questioning though. Guess his "legacy" is in question now.

CkG