**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?
You are amazing Bow - you take this issue and get your panties all in a bunch
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"
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
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