Okay okay, I admit it, Bush is right

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
...and yes Clinton deliberatly culled intel to support his pov, and Clinton alienated our allies, and Clinton got countries to be part of some sham coalition who would give him a Monica Special if they thought it would get some foreign aid, and Clinton alienated our allies, and Clinton started a war in Iraq, and Clinton has troops over there right now occupying Iraq.


Yeah, Clinton = Bush.

Did he cull intel? He used WMDs as his reasoning didn't he? Was his intel proven? Was it even followed up upon?
I do believe that Clinton did infact call upon the UK to help...was anyone else even consulted or asked?

You seem to not understand that Clinton's REASONS for his attack were like Bush's REASONS. The "how" is a different matter but the reasoning of "why" is almost exactly the same. As I've had to repeatedly say - what Clinton did does not "excuse" what Bush did and I NEVER SAID IT DID. But for you or anyone else to say Bush made this all up is asinine because the WMD reasoning was used before Bush "made it up". Ofcourse Clinton could have "blown them all up"


CkG
I doubt Clinton's reasons were anything like Bush's

Clinton did a great many things because they looked good. Realizing he would have a real mess, and that the provocation of known threats would not justify a war. Wanting to look like he did something (and always wanting to look good) he lobbed some missiles, and called it quits.

Bush on the other hand is surrounded by people who used the opportunity presented by 9/11 to promote the removal of Saddam. Chaney, Rumsfeld, and Bush managed to set up intel services to provide the data to support their position. That was carefully presented "evidence" showed that Saddam was not only a future threat, but was one right now. He had WMDs (at least the preferred sources said) and was willing to use them in a moments notice. This is where "imminent threat" shows up. If Bush did not use those exact words, everything was orchestrated to give that impression, and not with subtlety.

The difference is that Clinton used an opportunity to make himself look good, and left it at that. Not particularly noble. Oh, I didn't really care for Clinton's actions. I really thought the man was bright, but a scoundrel. I think Bush is average, but a dangerous scoundrel, and as much as a liar as Clinton. Clinton was petty. Bush is dangerous, and in part that he is either completely incompetent, or exactly the opposite. He is sufficiently lacking in principle to effectively mislead a willing nation (and I blame the American people for being so stupid to believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11) into a war to prove our power.

Neither man has much to recommend their respective actions.

Want to go after Clinton? Be my guest. Now, in the present, the problem is Bush. He isnt above scorn either.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
...and yes Clinton deliberatly culled intel to support his pov, and Clinton alienated our allies, and Clinton got countries to be part of some sham coalition who would give him a Monica Special if they thought it would get some foreign aid, and Clinton alienated our allies, and Clinton started a war in Iraq, and Clinton has troops over there right now occupying Iraq.


Yeah, Clinton = Bush.

Did he cull intel? He used WMDs as his reasoning didn't he? Was his intel proven? Was it even followed up upon?
I do believe that Clinton did infact call upon the UK to help...was anyone else even consulted or asked?

You seem to not understand that Clinton's REASONS for his attack were like Bush's REASONS. The "how" is a different matter but the reasoning of "why" is almost exactly the same. As I've had to repeatedly say - what Clinton did does not "excuse" what Bush did and I NEVER SAID IT DID. But for you or anyone else to say Bush made this all up is asinine because the WMD reasoning was used before Bush "made it up". Ofcourse Clinton could have "blown them all up"


CkG
Asinine is continuing to insist the "intelligence" claimed by Bush-lite and his minions was accurate just because it matched Clinton's. Clinton had accurate, up-to-date intelligence from people on the ground. Bush had out-of-date, often fraudulent intelligence carefully hand-crafted by picking and choosing specific bits and pieces from old, Clinton-era intel and Iraqi defectors with well-known anti-Hussein agendas. Bush's intel was lies, half-truths, and five-year-old garbage. He had no current intelligence. Things change.

As I have pointed out to you innumerable times, five years is a long time. We know there were many changes between Clinton's attack and Bush's invasion. These changes included the destruction of significant quantities of chemical and biological materials and the destruction of all significant remnants of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. This assessment came directly from U.N. inspector Scott Ritter, whose opinions on the matter are far more qualified than yours, no matter how many "rolling eyes" you include.

Clinton's intelligence was good. Bush-lite's intelligence was bad. Those are facts, not assertions.


Beyond that, it is specious to suggest the difference in "how" -- limited attack vs. invasion and occupation -- can be ignored when comparing the reasons for the actions. That is pure, unaldulterated poppycock. Let me offer the same analogy that has sent you into hiding three previous times. Clinton is the guy driving down the highway on a clear, sunny day, going 75 mph in a 65 zone. Bush-lite is the guy careening down the sidewalk at night, in the fog, judgment impaired by a few too many drinks (i.e., self-inflicted bogus intelligence), running down innocent people left and right. Your position is that we can ignore the "how" since their reasons are the same -- they're both in a hurry. Bull. The difference in "how" completely changes the validity of the reason.

IMO, your premise is dishonest and hypocritical. You certainly wouldn't let Clinton off the hook if the situation were reversed.


 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
...and yes Clinton deliberatly culled intel to support his pov, and Clinton alienated our allies, and Clinton got countries to be part of some sham coalition who would give him a Monica Special if they thought it would get some foreign aid, and Clinton alienated our allies, and Clinton started a war in Iraq, and Clinton has troops over there right now occupying Iraq.


Yeah, Clinton = Bush.

Did he cull intel? He used WMDs as his reasoning didn't he? Was his intel proven? Was it even followed up upon?
I do believe that Clinton did infact call upon the UK to help...was anyone else even consulted or asked?

You seem to not understand that Clinton's REASONS for his attack were like Bush's REASONS. The "how" is a different matter but the reasoning of "why" is almost exactly the same. As I've had to repeatedly say - what Clinton did does not "excuse" what Bush did and I NEVER SAID IT DID. But for you or anyone else to say Bush made this all up is asinine because the WMD reasoning was used before Bush "made it up". Ofcourse Clinton could have "blown them all up"


CkG
Asinine is continuing to insist the "intelligence" claimed by Bush-lite and his minions...
Hehe. I stopped reading right there.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Asinine is continuing to insist the "intelligence" claimed by Bush-lite and his minions...
Hehe. I stopped reading right there.
Good. Now if I could just get you to stop posting so easily, my work here would be complete.


It's so much easier to remain ignorant when you avoid reading anything with which you might disagree.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I thought Clinton used Operation Desert Fox to distract everyone from Monicagate. No? IIRC, that's what the repugnicans were all claiming at the time. Stories change? Need some back-up from the almighty Bubba now, huh? :)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
...and yes Clinton deliberatly culled intel to support his pov, and Clinton alienated our allies, and Clinton got countries to be part of some sham coalition who would give him a Monica Special if they thought it would get some foreign aid, and Clinton alienated our allies, and Clinton started a war in Iraq, and Clinton has troops over there right now occupying Iraq.


Yeah, Clinton = Bush.

Did he cull intel? He used WMDs as his reasoning didn't he? Was his intel proven? Was it even followed up upon?
I do believe that Clinton did infact call upon the UK to help...was anyone else even consulted or asked?

You seem to not understand that Clinton's REASONS for his attack were like Bush's REASONS. The "how" is a different matter but the reasoning of "why" is almost exactly the same. As I've had to repeatedly say - what Clinton did does not "excuse" what Bush did and I NEVER SAID IT DID. But for you or anyone else to say Bush made this all up is asinine because the WMD reasoning was used before Bush "made it up". Ofcourse Clinton could have "blown them all up"


CkG
Asinine is continuing to insist the "intelligence" claimed by Bush-lite and his minions was accurate just because it matched Clinton's. Clinton had accurate, up-to-date intelligence from people on the ground. Bush had out-of-date, often fraudulent intelligence carefully hand-crafted by picking and choosing specific bits and pieces from old, Clinton-era intel and Iraqi defectors with well-known anti-Hussein agendas. Bush's intel was lies, half-truths, and five-year-old garbage. He had no current intelligence. Things change.

As I have pointed out to you innumerable times, five years is a long time. We know there were many changes between Clinton's attack and Bush's invasion. These changes included the destruction of significant quantities of chemical and biological materials and the destruction of all significant remnants of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. This assessment came directly from U.N. inspector Scott Ritter, whose opinions on the matter are far more qualified than yours, no matter how many "rolling eyes" you include.

Clinton's intelligence was good. Bush-lite's intelligence was bad. Those are facts, not assertions.


Beyond that, it is specious to suggest the difference in "how" -- limited attack vs. invasion and occupation -- can be ignored when comparing the reasons for the actions. That is pure, unaldulterated poppycock. Let me offer the same analogy that has sent you into hiding three previous times. Clinton is the guy driving down the highway on a clear, sunny day, going 75 mph in a 65 zone. Bush-lite is the guy careening down the sidewalk at night, in the fog, judgment impaired by a few too many drinks (i.e., self-inflicted bogus intelligence), running down innocent people left and right. Your position is that we can ignore the "how" since their reasons are the same -- they're both in a hurry. Bull. The difference in "how" completely changes the validity of the reason.

IMO, your premise is dishonest and hypocritical. You certainly wouldn't let Clinton off the hook if the situation were reversed.
Learn to Read Bowfinger;) The stated reasons for the attack were both WMD related. You can't refute that - PERIOD. If you say otherwise you are a liar.
You little analogy is pure BS(oh and it has never sent me "into hiding":p) - because neither you, Ritter, nor Clinton can verify what or was not destroyed because it must not have been a priority. So for you to say that Clinton's intel was magically "good" when it came from the same sources that Bush's did - yet call Bush's "bad" is dishonest and not based on fact.. Yes things change in 5 years - but one thing didn't change - Saddam's defiance of the cease-fire agreement....which was the only reason we were/are still dealing with his sorry ass. Your smug attitude is funny since your argument is opinion - and mine is FACT.
Both used WMDs to launch their "pre-emptive" strike on a supposedly "sovereign" state;) But...but...but I thought Bush "made this all up"? I thought he started the "pre-emptive" doctrine in his thirst for blood:p
You people are funny:p Yes - You can't "excuse" Bush because of Clinton(and I never did) but likewise you can't excuse Clinton because of what Bush did. Both used the same reasoning - which is what I stated.

If you wish to be honest in regards to this subject I might continue this - but not until you admit that Both used the same WMD reasonings(which is what I stated;)) - it would be the honest thing for you to do Bow.:)

CkG

PS - DM(and Bow), I supported Clinton's strikes on Saddam - I just wish he'd have finished the job and/or made Saddam FULLY comply with the cease-fire agreement.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
Bush shouldn't have used false/outdated/bad evidence to goto war with Iraq.

He should have just said "They violated UN resolution # blah blah blah, by firing on US patrol planes in several hundred incidences, thereby constituting a declaration of war giving us a right to fight back. Plus a few dozen illegal missiles that... let us set him up the bomb."



i guess when a evil dictator shoots at us and stockpiles illegal missiles, we should just let him keep doing so, maybe throw in some financial aid for appeasement? oh wait that's the kim jong il strategy, so glad that's working...
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Asinine is continuing to insist the "intelligence" claimed by Bush-lite and his minions...
Hehe. I stopped reading right there.
Good. Now if I could just get you to stop posting so easily, my work here would be complete.


It's so much easier to remain ignorant when you avoid reading anything with which you might disagree.
That's just it. I knew I'd disagree. I disagree with any close-minded and biased person.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
That's just it. I knew I'd disagree. I disagree with any close-minded and biased person.
... where "close-minded and biased" means anything contrary to the Bush-lite party line. Give it a rest.

Based on your posting history, I'd say you are the poster boy for close-minded and biased. I don't remember seeing you say anything negative about Bush -- ever -- nor do I remember you ever saying anything positive about the left, except maybe for closet Republicans like Lieberman.

I stand by what I said. It's easy to remain ignorant when you avoid anything with which you might disagree.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
That's just it. I knew I'd disagree. I disagree with any close-minded and biased person.
... where "close-minded and biased" means anything contrary to the Bush-lite party line. Give it a rest.

Based on your posting history, I'd say you are the poster boy for close-minded and biased. I don't remember seeing you say anything negative about Bush -- ever -- nor do I remember you ever saying anything positive about the left, except maybe for closet Republicans like Lieberman.

I stand by what I said. It's easy to remain ignorant when you avoid anything with which you might disagree.
Yeah, even CkG for christ's sake, will post negatively about Bush from time to time. Mostly about conservative issue #1: big gov't spending. But hey, that's a start and what I call "fair and balanced." ;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
That's just it. I knew I'd disagree. I disagree with any close-minded and biased person.
... where "close-minded and biased" means anything contrary to the Bush-lite party line. Give it a rest.

Based on your posting history, I'd say you are the poster boy for close-minded and biased. I don't remember seeing you say anything negative about Bush -- ever -- nor do I remember you ever saying anything positive about the left, except maybe for closet Republicans like Lieberman.

I stand by what I said. It's easy to remain ignorant when you avoid anything with which you might disagree.
Yeah, even CkG for christ's sake, will post negatively about Bush from time to time. Mostly about conservative issue #1: big gov't spending. But hey, that's a start and what I call "fair and balanced." ;)
Now if we could just get Bowfinger and you to post something besides negatively slanted stuff about Bush;) That certainly would be a feat - wouldn't it;):D

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
That's just it. I knew I'd disagree. I disagree with any close-minded and biased person.
... where "close-minded and biased" means anything contrary to the Bush-lite party line. Give it a rest.

Based on your posting history, I'd say you are the poster boy for close-minded and biased. I don't remember seeing you say anything negative about Bush -- ever -- nor do I remember you ever saying anything positive about the left, except maybe for closet Republicans like Lieberman.

I stand by what I said. It's easy to remain ignorant when you avoid anything with which you might disagree.
Yeah, even CkG for christ's sake, will post negatively about Bush from time to time. Mostly about conservative issue #1: big gov't spending. But hey, that's a start and what I call "fair and balanced." ;)
Now if we could just get Bowfinger and you to post something besides negatively slanted stuff about Bush;) That certainly would be a feat - wouldn't it;):D

CkG
Hey, I've gone on record here many times about how I was behind Bush in Afghanistan. I was also behind him for many of the smaller, regional conflicts in the war on terror. Notably the cooperation between the U.S. forces and Philippine forces targeting Abu Sayef Islamic Extremists throughout the Philippines. There are other examples too. :)
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
So 9/11 gave the US a blank cheque to do whatever it wants?;
Yup we aren't getting hit like that again. Proactive measures. And Iraq has promoted terrorists abroad that is a fact. But we should ram it to the damn Saudi's they are almost more of a problem. Bastages! </soapbox>
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Sir Cad, you are full of it. Your constant distortions and misrepresentations of what others say is dishonest and dishonorable. Your constant evasions and refusal to address others' point vividly demonstrates you have zero ability to defend your blindly partisan postions. For example:

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Did he cull intel? He used WMDs as his reasoning didn't he? Was his intel proven? Was it even followed up upon?
I do believe that Clinton did infact call upon the UK to help...was anyone else even consulted or asked?

You seem to not understand that Clinton's REASONS for his attack were like Bush's REASONS. The "how" is a different matter but the reasoning of "why" is almost exactly the same. As I've had to repeatedly say - what Clinton did does not "excuse" what Bush did and I NEVER SAID IT DID. But for you or anyone else to say Bush made this all up is asinine because the WMD reasoning was used before Bush "made it up". Ofcourse Clinton could have "blown them all up"


CkG
Asinine is continuing to insist the "intelligence" claimed by Bush-lite and his minions was accurate just because it matched Clinton's. Clinton had accurate, up-to-date intelligence from people on the ground. Bush had out-of-date, often fraudulent intelligence carefully hand-crafted by picking and choosing specific bits and pieces from old, Clinton-era intel and Iraqi defectors with well-known anti-Hussein agendas. Bush's intel was lies, half-truths, and five-year-old garbage. He had no current intelligence. Things change.

As I have pointed out to you innumerable times, five years is a long time. We know there were many changes between Clinton's attack and Bush's invasion. These changes included the destruction of significant quantities of chemical and biological materials and the destruction of all significant remnants of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. This assessment came directly from U.N. inspector Scott Ritter, whose opinions on the matter are far more qualified than yours, no matter how many "rolling eyes" you include.

Clinton's intelligence was good. Bush-lite's intelligence was bad. Those are facts, not assertions.


Beyond that, it is specious to suggest the difference in "how" -- limited attack vs. invasion and occupation -- can be ignored when comparing the reasons for the actions. That is pure, unaldulterated poppycock. Let me offer the same analogy that has sent you into hiding three previous times. Clinton is the guy driving down the highway on a clear, sunny day, going 75 mph in a 65 zone. Bush-lite is the guy careening down the sidewalk at night, in the fog, judgment impaired by a few too many drinks (i.e., self-inflicted bogus intelligence), running down innocent people left and right. Your position is that we can ignore the "how" since their reasons are the same -- they're both in a hurry. Bull. The difference in "how" completely changes the validity of the reason.

IMO, your premise is dishonest and hypocritical. You certainly wouldn't let Clinton off the hook if the situation were reversed.
Learn to Read Bowfinger The stated reasons for the attack were both WMD related. You can't refute that - PERIOD. If you say otherwise you are a liar.
Point of fact, I did NOT refute that. It is a superficial oversimplification that neatly dodges critical issues -- which is why you keep repeating it. What I did say is that you cannot separate the "how" from the "why" because Bush's actions were way over the top, a reckless and disproportionate response to the flimsy evidence they fabricated.


You little analogy is pure BS(oh and it has never sent me "into hiding"
Though I note for the record that, as before, you avoid explaining how or why the analogy is inaccurate.


because neither you, Ritter, nor Clinton can verify what or was not destroyed
Would you care to cite your evidence for this claim? Didn't think so.

First, your comment is yet another distortion since neither Clinton nor I claimed to have verified what was or was not destroyed. Second, Ritter did make a claim about what was destroyed, and his expertise in the subject is ten thousand-fold greater than yours, Therefore, unless you can cite an equally qualified source, why don't we just agree that you pulled this comment out of your posterior? Third, and most importantly, so freakin' what? The comment is a red herring. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion whether Ritter's assessment was accurate. It has ZERO to do with the accuracy of Bush's fabricated intel five years later.


because it must not have been a priority.
Huh???


So for you to say that Clinton's intel was magically "good" when it came from the same sources that Bush's did - yet call Bush's "bad" is dishonest and not based on fact..
More dishonesty. Clinton's intel was current and first hand, taken directly from the U.N. inspectors who were on the ground only a few days before his raid. Bush's intel was a collection of half-truths and wishful interpretations of often-ancient information from second- and third-hand sources, many of whom had a vested interest in lying about Iraq's capabilities. Our own intelligence agencies pointed this out, but Cheney & Rumsfeld ensured these inconvenient details were buried in footnotes if they were printed at all. To mulishly insist Bush's intel came from the same place as Clinton's is just more blind, partisan wishful thinking.


Yes things change in 5 years - but one thing didn't change - Saddam's defiance of the cease-fire agreement....which was the only reason we were/are still dealing with his sorry ass.
I note that you just changed the subject again. It is a separate discussion, but I believe Hussein's "defiance" was an excuse to reopen the Iraq issue, not the cause.


Your smug attitude is funny since your argument is opinion - and mine is FACT.
Perhaps in your anti-world where everything is backwards.


Both used WMDs to launch their "pre-emptive" strike on a supposedly "sovereign" state;)
Already discussed and refuted.


But...but...but I thought Bush "made this all up"?
Mostly. There was just enough truth to allow them to squirm around and claim they did not technically lie. You know, the same style of dishonesty you YABAs tried to use to crucify Clinton.


I thought he started the "pre-emptive" doctrine in his thirst for blood
Actually, that comes more from Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the other neo-fascists from PNAC.


You people are funny Yes - You can't "excuse" Bush because of Clinton(and I never did)
But of course you really do, time and time again. You're never "excusing Bush", yet you constantly bring up Clinton in comparison, claiming Clinton was just as bad. A rose by any other name ...


but likewise you can't excuse Clinton because of what Bush did.
Another red herring.


Both used the same reasoning - which is what I stated.
Discussed and refuted.


If you wish to be honest in regards to this subject I might continue this
More new-speak from anti-world. Up is down. Right is wrong. War is peace.


- but not until you admit that Both used the same WMD reasonings(which is what I stated)
Already discussed.


it would be the honest thing for you to do Bow.
If it's all the same to you, I'll get my advice on honesty from someone with a better understanding of the word.


PS - DM(and Bow), I supported Clinton's strikes on Saddam - I just wish he'd have finished the job and/or made Saddam FULLY comply with the cease-fire agreement.
He certainly had more justification than Bush-lite. So did Bush Sr. for that matter. Somehow, however, the two of them managed more moderate responses in spite of having legitmate justification for more severe actions. Go figure. Maybe Junior got his war-mongering gene from the mailman. (Was Cheney ever a mailman?)


There you go, Sir Cad. I laid it out for you line by line. It's more difficult to "misinterpret" that way.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now if we could just get Bowfinger and you to post something besides negatively slanted stuff about Bush That certainly would be a feat - wouldn't it
That is also not true. As you well know, I have made positive comments about Bush in this forum when I felt he deserved them. I don't agree with him very often, but I have no problem acknowledging it when I do. Contrary to YABA bleating, I don't hate Bush, I just disagree with him.

You're not doing very well with honesty tonight Cad. Why is that?

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: EXman
too late to read that </falling asleep>
Yeah, it was too late to write it too, but I sometimes get fed up with all the distortions and evasions.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now if we could just get Bowfinger and you to post something besides negatively slanted stuff about Bush That certainly would be a feat - wouldn't it
That is also not true. As you well know, I have made positive comments about Bush in this forum when I felt he deserved them. I don't agree with him very often, but I have no problem acknowledging it when I do. Contrary to YABA bleating, I don't hate Bush, I just disagree with him.

You're not doing very well with honesty tonight Cad. Why is that?
Actually Bow - you are the one with honesty issues tonight. I'll get around to your chopped up post as soon as I skim it for the admission I was looking for.:) -I'm going to read it once I get take of a different crying person - my son;)

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
**Sorry to all you who don't give a rats ass - this is just for Bow since he feels it is important to debate....again.**

First off your quoting and chopping is absurd and distorts context. But the real issue here is why you felt it neccesary to spout off when I guess supposedly you weren't even contradicting my point. You said "Point of fact, I did NOT refute that." Well then why did you feel it neccesary to quote my post in reply to Winston? The point is that WMDs were used as the reason for both attacks - it isn't over simplification - it's a FACT. Or were you just once again taking issue with me making fun of the "blew them all up" excuse?;):p
You are amazing Bow - you take this issue and get your panties all in a bunch:p I have never criticized Clinton for using force against Iraq(except that he didn't continue and go far enough) - and likewise now I don't think that Bush's use of the same intelligence(both old and new) and agencies was wrong - but atleast Bush is going to finish it this time. Anywho I'll play your little game with the quotes now since you half-assed admitted that the WMD reason was used by both. Be aware though that you cut things in half that weren't supposed to be...and I'll attempt to put them back to gether so you can understand them.


Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Sir Cad, you are full of it. Your constant distortions and misrepresentations of what others say is dishonest and dishonorable. Your constant evasions and refusal to address others' point vividly demonstrates you have zero ability to defend your blindly partisan postions. For example:

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Did he cull intel? He used WMDs as his reasoning didn't he? Was his intel proven? Was it even followed up upon?
I do believe that Clinton did infact call upon the UK to help...was anyone else even consulted or asked?

You seem to not understand that Clinton's REASONS for his attack were like Bush's REASONS. The "how" is a different matter but the reasoning of "why" is almost exactly the same. As I've had to repeatedly say - what Clinton did does not "excuse" what Bush did and I NEVER SAID IT DID. But for you or anyone else to say Bush made this all up is asinine because the WMD reasoning was used before Bush "made it up". Ofcourse Clinton could have "blown them all up"


CkG
Asinine is continuing to insist the "intelligence" claimed by Bush-lite and his minions was accurate just because it matched Clinton's. Clinton had accurate, up-to-date intelligence from people on the ground. Bush had out-of-date, often fraudulent intelligence carefully hand-crafted by picking and choosing specific bits and pieces from old, Clinton-era intel and Iraqi defectors with well-known anti-Hussein agendas. Bush's intel was lies, half-truths, and five-year-old garbage. He had no current intelligence. Things change.

As I have pointed out to you innumerable times, five years is a long time. We know there were many changes between Clinton's attack and Bush's invasion. These changes included the destruction of significant quantities of chemical and biological materials and the destruction of all significant remnants of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. This assessment came directly from U.N. inspector Scott Ritter, whose opinions on the matter are far more qualified than yours, no matter how many "rolling eyes" you include.

Clinton's intelligence was good. Bush-lite's intelligence was bad. Those are facts, not assertions.


Beyond that, it is specious to suggest the difference in "how" -- limited attack vs. invasion and occupation -- can be ignored when comparing the reasons for the actions. That is pure, unaldulterated poppycock. Let me offer the same analogy that has sent you into hiding three previous times. Clinton is the guy driving down the highway on a clear, sunny day, going 75 mph in a 65 zone. Bush-lite is the guy careening down the sidewalk at night, in the fog, judgment impaired by a few too many drinks (i.e., self-inflicted bogus intelligence), running down innocent people left and right. Your position is that we can ignore the "how" since their reasons are the same -- they're both in a hurry. Bull. The difference in "how" completely changes the validity of the reason.

IMO, your premise is dishonest and hypocritical. You certainly wouldn't let Clinton off the hook if the situation were reversed.
Learn to Read Bowfinger The stated reasons for the attack were both WMD related. You can't refute that - PERIOD. If you say otherwise you are a liar.
Point of fact, I did NOT refute that. It is a superficial oversimplification that neatly dodges critical issues -- which is why you keep repeating it. What I did say is that you cannot separate the "how" from the "why" because Bush's actions were way over the top, a reckless and disproportionate response to the flimsy evidence they fabricated.
Like I stated before - it isn't over simplification - it was just a FACT. You OPINION that Bush's actions were reckless and disproportional is based on your OPINION that he fabricated evidenceand etc. Fine - You can have your opinion:)

You little analogy is pure BS(oh and it has never sent me "into hiding"
Though I note for the record that, as before, you avoid explaining how or why the analogy is inaccurate.
read the next part of what I said - it was an explaination;)

because neither you, Ritter, nor Clinton can verify what or was not destroyed
Would you care to cite your evidence for this claim? Didn't think so.
Care to cite your evidence it was destroyed? Didn't think so;)
First, your comment is yet another distortion since neither Clinton nor I claimed to have verified what was or was not destroyed. Second, Ritter did make a claim about what was destroyed, and his expertise in the subject is ten thousand-fold greater than yours, Therefore, unless you can cite an equally qualified source, why don't we just agree that you pulled this comment out of your posterior? Third, and most importantly, so freakin' what? The comment is a red herring. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion whether Ritter's assessment was accurate. It has ZERO to do with the accuracy of Bush's fabricated intel five years later.
Ritter's "explaination" did NOT say they were all destroyed;)...unless you can provide the evidence where he said that. From what I've read - it wasn't ALL destroyed, but he made excuses about why it wasn't a big deal anymore. Again - you try to call Bush' intel "fabricated" when infact that intel came from the same intel agencies that Clinton used. Yes some of the intel was the same- but not all of it. You are right though- Ritter's assessment is irrelevant because it doesn't prove Clinton's intel true or false.

because it must not have been a priority.
Huh???
This is the one of the big problems I had with Clinton - he didn't follow through with Iraq. He bombed them and got them to allow inspectors back in but he didn't push FULL compliance...because of "other" reasons.

So for you to say that Clinton's intel was magically "good" when it came from the same sources that Bush's did - yet call Bush's "bad" is dishonest and not based on fact..
More dishonesty. Clinton's intel was current and first hand, taken directly from the U.N. inspectors who were on the ground only a few days before his raid. Bush's intel was a collection of half-truths and wishful interpretations of often-ancient information from second- and third-hand sources, many of whom had a vested interest in lying about Iraq's capabilities. Our own intelligence agencies pointed this out, but Cheney & Rumsfeld ensured these inconvenient details were buried in footnotes if they were printed at all. To mulishly insist Bush's intel came from the same place as Clinton's is just more blind, partisan wishful thinking.
Clinton's intel came from the same agencies you now criticize as making up intel. Bush didn't make anything up - he isn't part of the intel community who's job it is to search these things out. Again - you state your OPINION as fact and embelish the connections to Rumsfeld and Cheney. To insist that the FACT that Bush's intel didn't come from the same agencies that Clinton relied upon is asinine - I hope you admit your foolishness in the future.
Yes things change in 5 years - but one thing didn't change - Saddam's defiance of the cease-fire agreement....which was the only reason we were/are still dealing with his sorry ass.
I note that you just changed the subject again. It is a separate discussion, but I believe Hussein's "defiance" was an excuse to reopen the Iraq issue, not the cause.
Note that the whole reason WMDs was used in both cases was infact because the non-compliance of Saddam in regards to the cease-fire agreement. It most definately is NOT a separate discussion since this whole issue with Saddam and WMDs comes directly from that agreement;) Your OPINION of the supposed "reopening" of the Iraq issue is exactly that - YOUR OPINION;) But yeah- I suppose it would be convienent for you to not discuss that part so I'll let it drop for now:)
Your smug attitude is funny since your argument is opinion - and mine is FACT.
Perhaps in your anti-world where everything is backwards.
I guess you didn't want to take that opportunity to admit that they both used WMDs as their reasoning.

Both used WMDs to launch their "pre-emptive" strike on a supposedly "sovereign" state;)
Already discussed and refuted.
Oh really? Sensitive subject? If Iraq was a "sovereign state" when Bush attacked - would it not have also been a "sovereign state" when Clinton attacked? Do you consider lobbing a couple hundred missiles into Iraq "pre-emptive" when the state reason was:
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
So again - how is this somehow a new "Bush Doctrine"?

But...but...but I thought Bush "made this all up"?
Mostly. There was just enough truth to allow them to squirm around and claim they did not technically lie. You know, the same style of dishonesty you YABAs tried to use to crucify Clinton.
Ah so you admit that he didn't just make up these claims against Iraq. Finally some honesty...but then you go and divert attention to what someone else did as an excuse;) Isn't that what you claim I did?

I thought he started the "pre-emptive" doctrine in his thirst for blood
Actually, that comes more from Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the other neo-fascists from PNAC.
Oh, right...I guess we should stop hearing "Bush's Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes" any day now, right?

You people are funny Yes - You can't "excuse" Bush because of Clinton(and I never did)
But of course you really do, time and time again. You're never "excusing Bush", yet you constantly bring up Clinton in comparison, claiming Clinton was just as bad. A rose by any other name ...
Again - like I said - the comparison is not an excuse for what Bush is doing - but rather the historical precident of the reasoning and actions. And no - I'm not saying "Clinton was just as bad":p I agreed with what he did- just as I do with Bush:)

but likewise you can't excuse Clinton because of what Bush did.
Another red herring.
Huh? How is that a red herring when infact if you think that Bush's WMD info was made up and faulty yet think Clinton's was golden. Again - did they not come from the same intel agencies? You made the analogy of one being reckless in comparison to the other only speeding. That IS making one seem less "bad" in comparison - ie excusing it. If you label the intel of one as "faulty" and "made up" what makes you think that the other's wasn't also? Quit trying to protect Clinton - I'm not after him:p

Both used the same reasoning - which is what I stated.
Discussed and refuted.
Well there you go again...I thought you kind of admitted that it was the case. I guess we have more honesty issues to deal with.;)

If you wish to be honest in regards to this subject I might continue this
More new-speak from anti-world. Up is down. Right is wrong. War is peace.
again you must have had nothing to add or say so you make silly accusations.

- but not until you admit that Both used the same WMD reasonings(which is what I stated)
Already discussed.
again - you seem to not want to fully admit that it was the case. We'll have to work on this issue more I guess.
it would be the honest thing for you to do Bow.
If it's all the same to you, I'll get my advice on honesty from someone with a better understanding of the word.
Ah yes - again questioning my honesty when infact my statement was true and factual. They both used WMD reasoning for their actions.

PS - DM(and Bow), I supported Clinton's strikes on Saddam - I just wish he'd have finished the job and/or made Saddam FULLY comply with the cease-fire agreement.
He certainly had more justification than Bush-lite. So did Bush Sr. for that matter. Somehow, however, the two of them managed more moderate responses in spite of having legitmate justification for more severe actions. Go figure. Maybe Junior got his war-mongering gene from the mailman. (Was Cheney ever a mailman?)
Again it's your OPINION which you are entitled to, but you see, there was much more to Iraq than just WMDs(which I've repeated stated on here). So Bow - how long should we have played this little hide and seek game with Saddam? Did he ever come close to complying with the cease-fire agreement? Remember there was more to it than the identification, documentation, and destruction of WMDs;)

There you go, Sir Cad. I laid it out for you line by line. It's more difficult to "misinterpret" that way.
[/quote]
Well there you go Bow - take it as you wish, but again they both used WMDs as reasoning for their actions and to this there is no "misinterpretation";) Now unless you are willing to fully admit(not almost...and then saying it was "refuted") that they both used WMDs as their reasoning - I see no reason to continue this further.

CkG
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY