Is this statement true or false?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
CAD - Okay this is getting ridiculous, but I want to take it to its logical extreme to make a point. First I pointed out that you're justifying Bush's actions by pointing to Clinton. You responded that "Nope- I'm not justifying anything..." So then I pointed out that if you're not justifying anything by making the comparison, then you must think Bush was wrong. If both cases are factual similar, as numerous posts in this thread have intimated, and you're not justifying Bush via Clinton, then logically you are indicating that Bush did the wrong thing. You responded "No, Bush didn't do the wrong thing..."

I don't see how your statements make any sense whatsoever. Maybe you should re-read what you said.

Secondly you basically admit that you questioned Clinton's actions in 98/99 by your statement, "I got bashed for bringing up Clinton and accused of the same things you are accusing me of. People passed off the Clinton questioning as political attacks or tried to justify it because the exact method used was different. " So again I ask - are you not a hypocrite for questioning Clinton for doing the same thing Bush is doing now (only more so)? Whenever anyone around here questions Bush, you're pretty much right there shrieking "Bush Basher!" and mounting a vigorous defense.

I don't know CAD, I think you've got some double-standard issues along with some pretty darn illogical responses...

It would seem that you are not understanding my thoughts here because you asked question and cant put my answers together logically so I'll spell it out r e a l s l o w.

I think Clinton's attack on Iraq was justified.
I think Bush's attack on Iraq was justified.
Clinton used WMD and nukes and international security as his reason for the attack
Bush used WMD and nukes and international security as his reason for the attack
Anti-Bush folk are questioning Bush for using WMDs and Nukes as his reason for the attack.
Anti-Bush folk DIDN'T and AREN'T questioning Clinton for using WMDs and Nukes as his reason for the attack.

I'm asking where are these "free thinking" and "non-blind sheep" people's outrage and rabid questioning of intel for Clinton's attack?
Did Clinton lie when he used WMD's and nukes in his justifications?

I don't and didn't see these questions being asked by the the people who are now questioning Bush.

Hence my assertion that this whole witch hunt is a politically motivated attempt to discredit Bush.

CkG

Again you missed out a few details trying to make your point,

What was the reason behind Clinton's attack (Operation Desert Fox): It was a response to UN weapon inspection team obstructed during inspection of suspect sites. It was backed by weapon inspector reports that they were not able to perform disarmament mandate and had to withdraw from Iraq.
What was the reason behind Bush's attack: None, inspection agreed by all party in resolution 1441 was still on going and UN weapon inspectors reported cooperation from Iraqi government and up to the war started, no violation was found.

Read the whole time line and the chain of events:

Iraq timeline since 1998

Clinton, attacked selected targets in response to the halting of whole inspection process. Clinton's claim of Iraqi had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs was based on the fact that Iraqi did not allowed access to inspection sites. The halting of inspection process was a danger to US national security because Iraqi weapon program was left unchecked and the possibility of Iraqi having WMD became higher.

Bush, invaded the whole country while the Iraqi government was cooperating with UN weapon inspection, and was not posting danger to US national security. Bush admin initially claimed Iraqi had WMD (note not programs) based on false intelligence and none of the claims were substantiated. Since the end of the war, the claim has been changed to "WMD programs"

Clinton's response did not involved 6000+ Iraqi civilian life lost, ? Iraqi military personnel life lost, 200+ US military personnel life lost, billions and billions of dollar spent.

Which president responded reasonably and responsibly? I'll let you answer that.

No, again - you miss the connection. THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THE ATTACKS WERE THE SAME!!! WMD and NUKES and INT'L SECURITY.
If you can't see that you are blind or just plain ignorant.

But as to your claim that Clinton's "trigger" was the fact that Inspectors were kicked out - What is the difference between that and the FACT that Iraq's claims in its weapons document submitted last year we NOT accurate and the inspectors have found BANNED rockets(missiles)!?!?. Guess those minor details are good enough for a "trigger".

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


I think Clinton's attack on Iraq was justified.
I think Bush's attack on Iraq was justified.

So why did you question Clinton then, but not Bush now? You still haven't explained that.

Clinton used WMD and nukes and international security as his reason for the attack
Bush used WMD and nukes and international security as his reason for the attack

Fine, but it's an oversimplification to equate the two attacks. Clinton bombed, but Bush invaded. It's incorrect to just say A=B here.

Anti-Bush folk are questioning Bush for using WMDs and Nukes as his reason for the attack.
Anti-Bush folk DIDN'T and AREN'T questioning Clinton for using WMDs and Nukes as his reason for the attack.

We're questioning the reasons because, thus far, the reasons haven't been substantiated. We've got some speculative intel and little bits and pieces, however overall the evidence hasn't fallen into place here. Again, WHY would we question Clinton now, what's the point?

I'm asking where are these "free thinking" and "non-blind sheep" people's outrage and rabid questioning of intel for Clinton's attack? Did Clinton lie when he used WMD's and nukes in his justifications?

I don't know CAD, where were they? Apparantly, you were asking a lot of questions about it. Did you happen to take notes about who was questioning Clinton and who wasn't? Besides, isn't it a little late to be questioning? I mean, let's go back in history and question every military action then if that's your strategy.

I don't and didn't see these questions being asked by the the people who are now questioning Bush.

So again, do you have a list of who did or didn't question Clinton? How can you prove anything about this really?

Hence my assertion that this whole witch hunt is a politically motivated attempt to discredit Bush.

Well naturally CAD, it's quite evident from your posts here, everyone is out to get Bush and you're the only one who can defend him. So how's that workin' out for ya? 😉

<sigh>
Lets try this one more time.

I think Clinton was correct and I think Bush is correct. There is not conflict there. I'm not questioning(to a point) either of them. I am asking why the people who are questioning Bush NOW didn't and aren't questioning Clinton.

No- the REASON for the attacks are being questioned by you people. You know, those pesky little WMDs and nuke capabilities THAT BOTH used as justification to attack.

Where were Clinton's evidence? He wasn't held to the same account as Bush is Now. The SAME people who are whining now didn't say a peep after Clinton's attack. THAT is what I'm pointing out.

No, I'm sayin AGAIN - that the people who are questioning Bush now:
a) could have stopped Bush's action in Iraq
b) didn't question Clinton after his attack
Guess who they are?😉 Tell me it isn't a political ploy to discredit Bush. The slimeballs had access to the intel - they didn't ask the questions they are now, when the should have.

It is quite obvious that you are not understanding the point or just plain ignore the truth. How's that working for ya😉😛
I'm not the only one who is pointing out the consistantcy problem with those that are questioning Bush's reasons to attack.

Maybe someday you will understand.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Seriously CkG, you are one of the most frustrating people to discuss this stuff with. I mean you say something in a thread and then later on, you mysteriously have no recollection of it. Let's tackle two points you keep making, nice and slow like:

1.) People are apparantly questioning Bush now, but didn't question Clinton.

Who ARE THESE PEOPLE who are questioning Bush now, but didn't question Clinton? You act like you have a list of people? If not, why are you screaming vague and ambiguous accusations? If you DO have a list, I'll be really worried for you. Seriously.

2.) You said, and I quote: "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."

Okay, let's not try to weasel out of this one, OK? I take this statement to mean that when Clinton was bombing Iraq, you were apparantly all over his ass about it. Personally, I can't see any other explanation for what you said. So in 1998/99 you were questioning Clinton's actions, presumably Desert Fox. Flash forward to 2003, now you're wondering why people are questioning Bush?

Bottom line CAD: you criticized Clinton for the exact same reasons people are now criticizing Bush. One's OK but the other's not OK. You've got a double-standard there.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Seriously CkG, you are one of the most frustrating people to discuss this stuff with. I mean you say something in a thread and then later on, you mysteriously have no recollection of it. Let's tackle two points you keep making, nice and slow like:

1.) People are apparantly questioning Bush now, but didn't question Clinton.

Who ARE THESE PEOPLE who are questioning Bush now, but didn't question Clinton? You act like you have a list of people? If not, why are you screaming vague and ambiguous accusations? If you DO have a list, I'll be really worried for you. Seriously.

2.) You said, and I quote: "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."

Okay, let's not try to weasel out of this one, OK? I take this statement to mean that when Clinton was bombing Iraq, you were apparantly all over his ass about it. Personally, I can't see any other explanation for what you said. So in 1998/99 you were questioning Clinton's actions, presumably Desert Fox. Flash forward to 2003, now you're wondering why people are questioning Bush?

Bottom line CAD: you criticized Clinton for the exact same reasons people are now criticizing Bush. One's OK but the other's not OK. You've got a double-standard there.

1. If you don't know who:
a) had the power to stop Bush from attacking (but rather gave him permission to attack)
b) are now questioning Bush's credibility and his reasons for the attack
c) didn't say a peep about holding Clinton accountable
then you best stay out of the discussions about American politics here in the P&N

2. Again - I made a scene in a thread to PURPOSELY SHOW that people would defend Clinton's attack yet still strut around here Bashing Bush. My being "ridiculed" and told that what Clinton did was irrelevant PROVES that this is a politically partisan attempt to discredit Bush. Again, real slow so you understand: I purposely and sarcastically posted a mini tirade using the same wild allegations thrown at Bush and turned them on Clinton. People didn't like that. Now tell me why it's ok to spout wild allegations against Bush's reasons to attack but not Clinton's since they both used the same reasons(WMD, Nukes, Security)?

No, I was not all over his ass. I believed then what I still believe today - that Saddam should have been removed after he blatantly defied the UN and their cease-fire terms. I've stated my positions multiple times and they haven't changed. Where are you getting the idea that I am questioning or questioned Clinton? I did in one post(actually 2 I believe but it was to show the same thing) to show that this questioning of Bush is politically motivated. What I am saying is - that IF you are criticizing Bush for his reasons to attack Iraq (WMD, Nukes, Security) then YOU should also be questioning Clinton's use of the same reasoning. IF you can't see the distiction between me and the people questioning Bush - then please don't bother to post in the P&N forum as I think ATOT would be more your speed.

CkG