Is this statement true or false?

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Clinton is Clinton... with his own set of issues and if he killed folks for reasons or an Agenda that was hidden from the american people.. then his legacy should so reflect... but, he's not the President now... Bush is and he must stand on his own feet and not on the back of Clinton.. Intel of WMD must have been provided both.. the question to be asked is:
Is it possible the Intel was so bad that the gathering folks are such that they have their own agenda... which is not Bush's and is also not the American Peoples... Reminds me of Nov 1963... Some other Agenda... and Bush is the fall guy... Examine the Intel... and the gatherers.... what is their Agenda... Lets go there first..!!!!

 

[CaptnKirk]

Heres the separation of the Truth from the Lies:

Truth : Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces

Lies : Every thing else after above statement.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

True or false:


Do you still beat you wife?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

The Inspectors which left just before that action claimed 95% of the WMD were accounted for/destroyed, Clintons action *may* have destroyed the rest. There certainly doesn't seem to be any there now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

The Inspectors which left just before that action claimed 95% of the WMD were accounted for/destroyed, Clintons action *may* have destroyed the rest. There certainly doesn't seem to be any there now.

So why did the UN in 98, if the IRaq was clear of weapons, not lift the sanctions?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

CAD - So if you're not justifying anything, then I can assume you think Bush did the wrong thing? Or are you just making a comparison of the reasons for attacking Iraq for the sheer hell of it? The December 1998 bombings of Iraq came under considerable international criticism mostly because they got a lot of press and TV coverage. I'm not sure if you're referring to that time frame specifically, or if you're referring to early 1999 which inversely didn't get a lot of press.

Finally, if you were "...ridiculed for questioning Clinton using the same wild accusations you people toss at Bush..." aren't you effectively admitting you?re a hypocrite? It's NOT okay for Clinton to bomb Iraq while enforcing the no-fly zones, but it IS okay for Bush to put boots on the ground and take over the country? Geeze, at least be consistent, right?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
True or false:


Do you still beat you wife?

🙂

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

CAD - So if you're not justifying anything, then I can assume you think Bush did the wrong thing? Or are you just making a comparison of the reasons for attacking Iraq for the sheer hell of it? The December 1998 bombings of Iraq came under considerable international criticism mostly because they got a lot of press and TV coverage. I'm not sure if you're referring to that time frame specifically, or if you're referring to early 1999 which inversely didn't get a lot of press.

Finally, if you were "...ridiculed for questioning Clinton using the same wild accusations you people toss at Bush..." aren't you effectively admitting you?re a hypocrite? It's NOT okay for Clinton to bomb Iraq while enforcing the no-fly zones, but it IS okay for Bush to put boots on the ground and take over the country? Geeze, at least be consistent, right?

No, Bush didn't do the wrong thing - Just like I think that Clinton <gasp>:Q did the right thing. I am consistant. The comparison is for you who don't say a peep(or pass it off as a "right wing conspiracy") about the Clinton attack yet Blast Bush for using the same reasons.
No, my little "questioning" post was to show this exact thing. People aren't/didn't question Clinton's evidence and reasons but are doing so with Bush. 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.
Consistancy my freind.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So why did the UN in 98, if the IRaq was clear of weapons, not lift the sanctions?

For the slow wit . . . the US is part of the UN Security Council. Nothing of significance happens at the UN without US consent. Our magnanimous nature requires us to punish Saddam and insist he satisfy the US-mandated criteria for proof . . . which is essentially . . . we will lift sanctions when we feel like it . . . regardless of what you do.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

CAD - So if you're not justifying anything, then I can assume you think Bush did the wrong thing? Or are you just making a comparison of the reasons for attacking Iraq for the sheer hell of it? The December 1998 bombings of Iraq came under considerable international criticism mostly because they got a lot of press and TV coverage. I'm not sure if you're referring to that time frame specifically, or if you're referring to early 1999 which inversely didn't get a lot of press.

Finally, if you were "...ridiculed for questioning Clinton using the same wild accusations you people toss at Bush..." aren't you effectively admitting you?re a hypocrite? It's NOT okay for Clinton to bomb Iraq while enforcing the no-fly zones, but it IS okay for Bush to put boots on the ground and take over the country? Geeze, at least be consistent, right?

No, Bush didn't do the wrong thing - Just like I think that Clinton <gasp>:Q did the right thing. I am consistant. The comparison is for you who don't say a peep(or pass it off as a "right wing conspiracy") about the Clinton attack yet Blast Bush for using the same reasons.
No, my little "questioning" post was to show this exact thing. People aren't/didn't question Clinton's evidence and reasons but are doing so with Bush. 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.
Consistancy my freind.

CkG

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...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

So why did the UN in 98, if the IRaq was clear of weapons, not lift the sanctions?

For the slow wit . . . the US is part of the UN Security Council. Nothing of significance happens at the UN without US consent. Our magnanimous nature requires us to punish Saddam and insist he satisfy the US-mandated criteria for proof . . . which is essentially . . . we will lift sanctions when we feel like it . . . regardless of what you do.

So what you are saying is that even after Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days, he did not feel like completely removed all the WMD programs in Iraq or even curtained Saddam from continueing such programs in the future? This group here is claiming that dessert fox got them all....

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

No what I'm claiming is that US intelligence took a dramatic fall when our insurgents within and around the UN inspection team voluntarily left Iraq in 1998. Whatever we knew about at that time took a couple a cruise missiles each to the chin. Odds are Saddam decided to cut his losses and just waste money on conventional forces and opulent palaces . . . waiting for the day when the US/UK lost interest.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

I questioned Clintons motives then. If he were president I would still do so. He isn't. If he started a whole bloody war, I would be against it. He didnt. Bush is the man who started a war. We are in Iraq now because of Bush. If they amend the Constitution, and Clinton gets back into office, and wants to start a war over something like this, then I will be critical of him again. For now, Bush is the SOB who wanted this and got it. I reserve the right to be irate at future presidents as the situation warrants. For now, Bush is the problem

 

[Moonbeam]

We don't seem to have any reason to believe that Clinton lied about Intelligence that he had to justify his bombing. He did the wrong thing, maybe in good faith, Bush lied by using forged data.

Who did the forgery. What is the rest of the British intelligence they won't show us9hehe what a joke) and who put Niger in the speech?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We don't seem to have any reason to believe that Clinton lied about Intelligence that he had to justify his bombing. He did the wrong thing, maybe in good faith, Bush lied by using forged data.

Who did the forgery. What is the rest of the British intelligence they won't show us9hehe what a joke) and who put Niger in the speech?

Let's get Clinton's bombing of the factory in Sudan into this discussion. Was the intelligence that he used accurate? Was that factory in fact being used to make chemical weapons as he claimed?

Why your double standard? Rhetorical question, your bias and hate is well known on these boards.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

The Inspectors which left just before that action claimed 95% of the WMD were accounted for/destroyed, Clintons action *may* have destroyed the rest. There certainly doesn't seem to be any there now.

So why did the UN in 98, if the IRaq was clear of weapons, not lift the sanctions?

1) "May" does not = did

2) The UN actually tried, ask the US and Britain why the Sanctions remained.

If I may put things plainly: Clinton's attack resulted in the need for more inspections. It also meant that all previous knowledge/Intel on Iraqi WMD was obsolete. He "may" have destroyed it all, he may have not. If he did, then Iraq was WMD free, if he didn't, Iraq still had them. The biggest error with the current situation is that it seems Bush assumed that the leftovers after the inspectors left were still intact. Maybe Clinton did what Bush only proposed to do? At any rate, Fools rush in!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We don't seem to have any reason to believe that Clinton lied about Intelligence that he had to justify his bombing. He did the wrong thing, maybe in good faith, Bush lied by using forged data.

Who did the forgery. What is the rest of the British intelligence they won't show us9hehe what a joke) and who put Niger in the speech?

First off, Niger was not in the speech. Next - who is to say that Clinton didn't use forged intel? Nobody with the power to do something about it questioned him and those same people who had the power then, didn't question Bush until AFTER they gave him permission to go. 😛

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let's get Clinton's bombing of the factory in Sudan into this discussion. Was the intelligence that he used accurate? Was that factory in fact being used to make chemical weapons as he claimed?

Too date the answer is apparently . . . don't know (probably not) and don't know (probably not). Clinton's intelligence sux big donkey gonads for the same reason as Bush's. One difference is Clinton didn't invade the Sudan (or Iraq) and claim it was for the good of the world. Another significant difference is Clinton didn't spend 1996-1998 trying to cobble together a somewhat credible rationale for bombings. Bush (and his entourage) entered the White House with designs on conquest . . . 9/11 provided them with political cover.

 

[Martin]

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.

Ah, I thouth Bush said it.

In that case, I would move " Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs" into "I dunno" territory.

Let's look at what we know. At one point in the past, SH had WMDs. During the war, he no longer had them. Its unlikely that he hid them (they would have been found by now) or that he moved them to Syria 🙂roll😉, so he most likely destroyed the few remnants with the hope that sanctions could be lifted and he could start anew. Whether he destroyed them before or after Clinton attacked, we don't know.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Let's get Clinton's bombing of the factory in Sudan into this discussion. Was the intelligence that he used accurate? Was that factory in fact being used to make chemical weapons as he claimed?

Too date the answer is apparently . . . don't know (probably not) and don't know (probably not). Clinton's intelligence sux big donkey gonads for the same reason as Bush's. One difference is Clinton didn't invade the Sudan (or Iraq) and claim it was for the good of the world. Another significant difference is Clinton didn't spend 1996-1998 trying to cobble together a somewhat credible rationale for bombings. Bush (and his entourage) entered the White House with designs on conquest . . . 9/11 provided them with political cover.

Are you saying that before Pres. Bush took office there was no concern by any prior administration officials that containment of Iraq was a viable or sustainable long term solution?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

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.

Ah, I thouth Bush said it.

In that case, I would move " Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs" into "I dunno" territory.

Let's look at what we know. At one point in the past, SH had WMDs. During the war, he no longer had them. Its unlikely that he hid them (they would have been found by now) or that he moved them to Syria 🙂roll😉, so he most likely destroyed the few remnants with the hope that sanctions could be lifted and he could start anew. Whether he destroyed them before or after Clinton attacked, we don't know.

Interesting but was Saddam crying for inspectors to come into Iraq to verify that he was clean and for sanctions to be lifted?

Say that Iraq was found to be free of the banned weapons, with the scientists and knowledge that they had, how long would it have taken him to rebuild his stocks once sanctions were lifted?

 

[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.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We don't seem to have any reason to believe that Clinton lied about Intelligence that he had to justify his bombing. He did the wrong thing, maybe in good faith, Bush lied by using forged data.

Who did the forgery. What is the rest of the British intelligence they won't show us9hehe what a joke) and who put Niger in the speech?

Let's get Clinton's bombing of the factory in Sudan into this discussion. Was the intelligence that he used accurate? Was that factory in fact being used to make chemical weapons as he claimed?

Why your double standard? Rhetorical question, your bias and hate is well known on these boards.

My my, your bias and inability to put one and one together to make two are famous.

[etech]Are you saying that Clinton's CIA told him the WMD factory was really a baby milk factory but he made up that lie anyway as an excuse to bomb?[/etech]

The issue isn't phony intelligence, it's whether you knowingly use it to start an otherwise illegal war. And remember. If I were an America hater I'd be thrilled Bush was President.

 

[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? 😉