so we have two people that can't count.
Each was accused of a war under false pretenses, Clinton for dealing with the balkans issue, Bush for his falacious invasion of iraq.
... or read. :roll:
However, I disagree with the idea that Clinton's handling of the Balkans was wrong.
What I find most amusing is that all the same people who are constantly defending every action of Bush, are probably the same people who were foaming at the mouth to see Clinton impeached for lying about a bj. Why is it that extremists for both the left and right are incapable of admitting when someone from their own party screws up? It seems to me some people get so caught up in the republican versus democrat debate, that they neglect to see the issues and problems for what they are.
Gee, I wonder if you would be applying that same logic if we were talking about the right to bear arms.......
::raises hand:: Ooooo oooo I know!
Can't have it both ways, but it's good to see that you have added to your resume:
1. Torture advocate
2. Expert on all things Islamic
3. Constitutional scholar
4. ??? What will tomorrow bring?
You seem to have lost your bearings (or was that your marbles) somewhere in this story. The U.S. went into the Balkins as part of NATO coalition, not a unilateral U.S. operation, and they went after Slobodan Milosovic, who was directing genocide, ethnic cleansing and other gross violations of the Geneva Conventions in operations against Croatia and Bosnia and Bosnia. There's more than enough evidence of Milosovic's crimes to know that going after him was justified. Ask the Albanians, Bosnians and Croats who survived it.
Did Clinton make mistakes? The bombing of the Chinese emabassy in Belgrade comes to mind, but unless you have direct proof that it wasn't accidental, it's entirely credible that it was.
Would you care to give us your enlightened insight about the meaning of "fudged it" and exactly what Clinton did wrong? If you can, then, tell us what he should have done differently?
Would you care to tell us how Bush's unilateral invasion of Iraq based entirely on LIES is comparable in any way to the U.S. participation in NATO operations in the Balkans?
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Where is a lawyer when you need one. If what you say is true then Bill Clinton commited a crime when "Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright on Monday found President Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony during the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit and ordered him to pay expenses Jones may have incurred because of the contempt."
I do not believe that being held in contempt of court is a crime, or else we can start saying that Bill Clinton is a criminal hmmmm
2 GHz CPU and 2 GB of RAM and DSL can handle the PDF so no problem.
First, the Cato Institute is a pretty dogmatic neocon organization, and their "thinking" is responsible for a lot of the sh8 we're in, right now, so I take anything they say with a large truckload of salt. That said, I have no expectations that ANY President, or any nation, could conduct a military operation with no errors.
Even granting that the Clinton administration made large errors, can you name anything they did in the Balkans that comes even close to the treason of committing a nation to war based on nothing but lies or shredding the Constitutional rights of American citizens?
I'll be interested in knowing what you think Clinton did that comes anywhere near the depravity of the Bushwhackos.
The other consideration is, there's nothing we can do about the Clinton adminstration except to learn from what they did right and wrong. We still have some time to do something about the current criminals in charge. Impeachment and conviction for treason comes to mind. :|
I'll forego the firing squad. I'd just like to see Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Feif, et al spend a few years at the lovely downtown Guantanamo Hilton while the courts thrash out who has jurisdiction to try them for their various and multiple crimes.
Yes, Cato is a right-wing organization, but occasionally they do have some pretty good synopsises. I found this to be one of them. Interesting on your last point, as you seem to willingly bash GWB and company for each and every (perceived) mistake in the current conflicts. (And yes, there has never been a military operation conducted without error.)
Committing troops to be slaughtered in a foreign land that posed no threat?
Many of the arguments those like yourself make against the current conflicts could be (and were) lodged against Clinton.
And I'd be interested to know which constitutional rights have been shredded?
No, there's nothing that can be done about his blunders now. At least not in the Balkans. I'm hoping North Korea might be a different story.
It is always easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight and play armchair quarterback. I don't blame Clinton outright for many of the mistakes in the Balkans (after all, his staff was as utterly incompetent as he was) and blaming Bush for every mistake made in the current conflicts is, similarly, naive and misinformed.
Slaughtered? Last time I checked, NATO forces won that one. I don't have time to read the Cato report. Facts and Cliffs, please.
And before you go off half cocked, I'm not anti-war at all costs. I was born to Jewish family two months before Pearl Harbor so believe me, I know there are justifiable reasons to fight.
I've also acknowledged so many times before that we were right to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban who were shielding them in Afghanistan. Even the majority of the Islamic world backed us in that effort.
The problem is, Bush's war in Iraq was based on pure bullsh8, and doing it, Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and moved the majority of our forces to Iraq. As a result, the Taliban are regaining strength, and the death toll is once again rising, there.
So??? We now the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, and, as noted above, there isn't any arguement that we were right to join the NATO action against Milosovic in the Balkans, and Bush was right to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Umm... How about The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
The Bushwhackos couldn't even deal with a questionable piece of legislation that gave them the right to obtain such warrants two weeks after the fact of any such invasion of an American citizen's rights.
It is always easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight and play armchair quarterback. I don't blame Clinton outright for many of the mistakes in the Balkans (after all, his staff was as utterly incompetent as he was) and blaming Bush for every mistake made in the current conflicts is, similarly, naive and misinformed.[/quote]
There are still major differences. By your own statements, whatever you believe Clinton did wrong regarding the Balkans (or even North Korea), you believe it was a mistake.
Bush's crimes are no mistake. They are intentional acts perpetrated contrary to U.S. law and the rights of every American citizen. He's the head of the worst adminstration in U.S. History, and I believe he's guilty of multiple crimes, including treason. :|
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Thank you Harvey, best post you ever made.
Look at what can be said with just minimal changing.
Harvey please explain why it is ok to go after Milosevic because of his crimes, but not ok to go after Saddam?
Are the people of the Balkans worth more than the people of Iraq? (BTW Milosevic?s wars caused the deaths of around 100,000 people, while Saddam killed around 182,000 in the Al-Anfal campaign by its self.
Last time I checked Milosevic had no ties with terrorism out side of the Balkans. Nor did he invade another country or attack his neighbors outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Ala Kuwait and Iran)
And check out this great tidbit about Clinton's actions in Bosnia "This action was not approved by the U.N. Security Council, and strongly opposed by Russia and China." sound familiar?
But wait there is even more, Clinton did NOT have the approval of congress to send or use the US military in Bosnia, he only got the approval after the fact.
Nice double standard you have there Harvey. Clinton attacks mass murderer=good, Bush attacks mass murderer=bad.
And to answer your question "Would you care to tell us how Bush's unilateral invasion of Iraq based entirely on LIES is comparable in any way to the U.S. participation in NATO operations in the Balkans"
Bush went to the UN before hand AND had the approval of congress.
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up. Now, at least, I know that, in addition to being a petty neocon troll, you're reading challenged, as well. I addressed all of your questions in my previous post, and now, you ask that? :roll:
If you're really a "professor," please tell us where you teach so I know what school I would never allow any kid of mine to attend.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Well Harvey, you gave a justification for Clinton attacking Bosnia that was almost exactly the same as Bush's reason for attacking Iraq. Of course Bush also mentioned Saddam's ties to terrorism, his use of WMD and his history of attacking neighbors.
So why is Bush wrong and Clinton right?
Everything you said about Bosnia also applies to Iraq, so if Clinton can attack Bosnia based on just those reasons, why can't Bush use the same reasons to attack Iraq?
Because Clinton lied about who was making his willie slick, while Bush lied about the pissant excuses he gave for going to war. :|
If you can't tell the difference, you just convince me further that you're a pathetic, lying neocon sycophant troll.
I'm still waiting for you to tell us where teach... Prof? :laugh:
Cato is a neocon organization? That's new to me. It's libertarian. It rarely, if ever, has anything good to say about any of Bush's policies. You'd probably find more flattering articles about the Clinton administration than the Bush administration on their site. Hell, they even have an article up there on why conservatives (real ones, not the fake ones who are conservative in name only) should have voted for Kerry.
Indeed. Liberals have little reason to like them for their economic views, but in terms of social opinions, they actually line up quite nicely...and since Cato holds some ACTUAL conservative views in economics, modern "conservatives" have little reason to like them either. Overall, I'd say Cato does more for the intellectual side of the lefties than they do for the righties.
Of course, we all know that George W. Bush is our first Convicted Criminal President.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#drunk
BurnItDwn
Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 26,072
- 1,553
- 126
I am rather disturbed by the state of things these days.
When Clinton was president, a scandol over a BJ caused a HUGE investigation and an impeachment trial.
George Bush allegedly illegally wiretaps americans, which if true, would be a direct violation of the constitution ... There hasn't been a publicity filled big investigation, instead .. congress want's to pardon him rather then go through due process of law.
When Clinton was president, a scandol over a BJ caused a HUGE investigation and an impeachment trial.
George Bush allegedly illegally wiretaps americans, which if true, would be a direct violation of the constitution ... There hasn't been a publicity filled big investigation, instead .. congress want's to pardon him rather then go through due process of law.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter