Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
I doubt Clinton's reasons were anything like Bush'sOriginally 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?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.
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"
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.