Would Bill Clinton have invaded Iraq ?

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Clinton would have invaded another intern.

Guarantee that wouldn't have cost over 1200 American Serviceman's lives.

Might have taken 1200 to pull Clinton off the intern 🙂

 

[Genx87]

WTC bombing, and Tim McVeigh.
Those were the big terrorist acts of the 90's on US soil.
Don't forget Republicans were more interested in hunting Clinton than terrorists in the 90's.

Ahh but US assets such as the African Embassies, Kholbar Towers, and the USS Cole were all attacks which Clinton never really responded to with any force.

read what I wrote again and then realize why you need to read more carefully - I didn't say it would stop it - I said it possibly could have. Christ - if a different president was elected in some other country it could have changed something minor that could have caused this not to happen. The whole premise of trying to predict what would happen with a different president in office is pretty stupid - no one could possibly do it. There are just too many variables - known and unknown.

Read what I said. It isnt impossible to tell as OBL has been attacking and probing us since the early 1990s. You imply it "might" be possible. I am telling you it isnt possible 9-11 wouldnt have happened.

This isnt stupid. OBL started planning this in 1997 so if Clinton could run for a 3rd term and won, he wouldnt have called it off.

What indication except for your fantasy world gives you an inclination it could have possibly not happened if Clinton was elected to a 3rd term?

Reportedly, Clinton authorized killing Al Keeda members using unmanned planes, but the Pentagon did not think they were ready for that task as of the time Clinton left office.

Translation: No defense so lets throw out a possible scenario that never happened.

Also, reportedly, much of the plan to go into Afghanistan was already developed under Clinton, but he didn't think it was right to start an action like that just as he was leaviong office, and felt the next adminsitration deserved to make the decision.

those are both things i've heard somewhere, anyway.

That is stretching it a bit. We have war plans for invading every country in the world. Clinton wasnt going to do anything in Afghanistan and you know it.

who has bush brougth to justice for terrorism? I sure haven't seen binladen paraded around getting checked for lice.

Is OBL the only terrorist in the world?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Saddam was egging the world with his unrivaled support for terrorist organizations"

Clinton was not stupid enough to believe this tripe, nor was he a big enough liar to make the claim. He has been eclipsed by his successors in this regard.

This is part of the revisionist history I often speak of. Clinton WAS stupid enough and so were quite a few other Democrats back in the day who suddenly did an abrupt about face when Bush began doing mroe that rattling his sabre.

Clinton from 1998:

"What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

"Just consider the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

"Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it."

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Clinton sent a message to Iraq and the republicans said it was avert attention. You can't have it both ways. I believe Clinton would have worked to get Saddam removed from power, but not in the costly way Bush has done it.

 

[classy]

Well if Clinton is being held responsible for the USS Cole and a couple other misfortunes, then Bush should be held responsible for 9/11. Republicans always want to talk out of both sides of the mouth.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Saddam was egging the world with his unrivaled support for terrorist organizations"

Clinton was not stupid enough to believe this tripe, nor was he a big enough liar to make the claim. He has been eclipsed by his successors in this regard.

This is part of the revisionist history I often speak of. Clinton WAS stupid enough and so were quite a few other Democrats back in the day who suddenly did an abrupt about face when Bush began doing mroe that rattling his sabre.

Clinton from 1998:

"What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

"Just consider the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

"Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it."

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Clinton sent a message to Iraq and the republicans said it was avert attention. You can't have it both ways. I believe Clinton would have worked to get Saddam removed from power, but not in the costly way Bush has done it.

Except the entire problem of 9/11 was not Iraq, but Saudi Arabia. How would Clinton have handled that? would he, like Bush, have taken us into Iraq as a method of dealing with SA, or at least keeping a close eye on them?

It would seem he would have no choice. If there's another way to deal with the problem that is SA, I don't see it.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Genx87

read what I wrote again and then realize why you need to read more carefully - I didn't say it would stop it - I said it possibly could have. Christ - if a different president was elected in some other country it could have changed something minor that could have caused this not to happen. The whole premise of trying to predict what would happen with a different president in office is pretty stupid - no one could possibly do it. There are just too many variables - known and unknown.

Read what I said. It isnt impossible to tell as OBL has been attacking and probing us since the early 1990s. You imply it "might" be possible. I am telling you it isnt possible 9-11 wouldnt have happened.

This isnt stupid. OBL started planning this in 1997 so if Clinton could run for a 3rd term and won, he wouldnt have called it off.

What indication except for your fantasy world gives you an inclination it could have possibly not happened if Clinton was elected to a 3rd term?

So I guess it was fate that OBL succeeded? No possible change in conditions caused by altering history could have stopped him? I'd argue with you more but you are beyond reason. You can't predict what would have happened - it's simply impossble. Me living in a fantasy world? Did you call up your favorite psychic hotline (the same one that told you what would happen when you change out an entire administration) to get that one? To make this more clear from you (since you obviously don't get the point and just think I'm being partisian) I'll lay out what I think if other things had happened...

CHANGE: Clinton gets a third term
POSSIBLE OUTCOME: OBL potentially stopped b/c of a different people in the admin and therefore different decisions made

CHANGE: McCain gets the nomination - becomes president back in 2000
POSSIBLE OUTCOME: OBL potentially stopped b/c of a different people in the admin and therefore different decisions made

CHANGE: Al Gore wins in 2000
POSSIBLE OUTCOME: OBL potentially stopped b/c of a different people in the admin and therefore different decisions made

or an even smaller change....

CHANGE: GW chooses different advisors, etc.
POSSIBLE OUTCOME: OBL potentially stopped b/c of a different people in the admin and therefore different decisions made

etc....

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Saddam was egging the world with his unrivaled support for terrorist organizations"

Clinton was not stupid enough to believe this tripe, nor was he a big enough liar to make the claim. He has been eclipsed by his successors in this regard.

This is part of the revisionist history I often speak of. Clinton WAS stupid enough and so were quite a few other Democrats back in the day who suddenly did an abrupt about face when Bush began doing mroe that rattling his sabre.

Clinton from 1998:

"What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

"Just consider the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

"Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it."

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

That was in 1998. Since then there had been substantial evidence that Saddam was not the threat they thought he was.

Since you insist on using 1998 statements, then the answer to the OP question is a definite no since Clinton didn't go to war with Iraq in 1998.

What I do believe is that Clinton would have looked at evidence pro and con before launching a full scale war. I see no evidence that Bush did so. For Clinton's many faults, he was not so great a fool. In his personal life, yes but when it came to war, no.

Uh, wrong. He bombed Iraq in 1998.

 

[Ozoned]

"Would Bill Clinton have invaded Iraq ?"


I vote for a hypothetical who gives a sh!t....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Saddam was egging the world with his unrivaled support for terrorist organizations"

Clinton was not stupid enough to believe this tripe, nor was he a big enough liar to make the claim. He has been eclipsed by his successors in this regard.

This is part of the revisionist history I often speak of. Clinton WAS stupid enough and so were quite a few other Democrats back in the day who suddenly did an abrupt about face when Bush began doing mroe that rattling his sabre.

Clinton from 1998:

"What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

"Just consider the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

"Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it."

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Clinton sent a message to Iraq and the republicans said it was avert attention. You can't have it both ways. I believe Clinton would have worked to get Saddam removed from power, but not in the costly way Bush has done it.

Except the entire problem of 9/11 was not Iraq, but Saudi Arabia. How would Clinton have handled that? would he, like Bush, have taken us into Iraq as a method of dealing with SA, or at least keeping a close eye on them?

It would seem he would have no choice. If there's another way to deal with the problem that is SA, I don't see it.

So, Bush knew he couldnt attack SA so he decided to go to war with a country completely unrelated to 9/11 so they could keep an eye on SA.

Ok I can accept that as long as the repubs get off their high horse and stop lying about the other reasons.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Saddam was egging the world with his unrivaled support for terrorist organizations"

Clinton was not stupid enough to believe this tripe, nor was he a big enough liar to make the claim. He has been eclipsed by his successors in this regard.

This is part of the revisionist history I often speak of. Clinton WAS stupid enough and so were quite a few other Democrats back in the day who suddenly did an abrupt about face when Bush began doing mroe that rattling his sabre.

Clinton from 1998:

"What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

"Just consider the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

"Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it."

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Clinton sent a message to Iraq and the republicans said it was avert attention. You can't have it both ways. I believe Clinton would have worked to get Saddam removed from power, but not in the costly way Bush has done it.

Except the entire problem of 9/11 was not Iraq, but Saudi Arabia. How would Clinton have handled that? would he, like Bush, have taken us into Iraq as a method of dealing with SA, or at least keeping a close eye on them?

It would seem he would have no choice. If there's another way to deal with the problem that is SA, I don't see it.

So, Bush knew he couldnt attack SA so he decided to go to war with a country completely unrelated to 9/11 so they could keep an eye on SA.

Ok I can accept that as long as the repubs get off their high horse and stop lying about the other reasons.

As much as some people, like me, would surely love to see some truth come out purely for the sake of truth, the administration making that kind of public and policy statement would be a HUGE political faux pas. It can't possibly ever be stated publicly by Bush or anyone else in the US admin as the intended policy, at least not at this stage. In a way it's akin to something one would never say in polite conversation.

But it's there for those willing to think upon those lines, and you can be sure that the possibility doesn't pass lightly by the Sauds either.

 

[Zipp]

JIM LEHRER: Now, Ambassador Richardson at the U.N. and others in the administration have said the military option, just to continue your sentence, the military option remains on the table. The ambassador from Iraq to the U.N. was on our program and he pretty much acknowledged that Iraq is banking on that not being real, that the U.S. alone is not going to go in and take out some suspected anthrax facilities, particularly if it's in the palace where Saddam Hussein lives, et cetera, et cetera.


PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy.

Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. That is not a threat.

link

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

^^^^

Waiting for someone to argue that Clinton didn't have access to the intel to make such a determination.

 

[headbox]

It is well documented that Clinton passed up 4 opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden but didn't because he was worried about his self image. He didn't want to appear as a "hit man" even though bin Ladden already bombed the WTC years before 9/11. Clinton put his image first and his policies second, which made him popular with the average citizen who feeds off of media hype, but fails to grasp the global situation.

However, Clinton DID deploy US troops to more locations than any US President in history, but only to "low intensity" conflicts... I know this well because I was an Army Ranger from 1993 to 1997 and went to Haiti and my brother went to Bosnia. At the same time he drastically cut military spending and was VERY unpopular with the troops- I never once met a Clinton supporter in the military. So if he DId invade Iraq, he would have done it poorly and with too much attention on media reporting and puplic opinion instead of letting Generals do what they need to do. Luckily he was limited to 2 terms!

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: headbox
It is well documented that Clinton passed up 4 opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden but didn't because he was worried about his self image. He didn't want to appear as a "hit man" even though bin Ladden already bombed the WTC years before 9/11. Clinton put his image first and his policies second, which made him popular with the average citizen who feeds off of media hype, but fails to grasp the global situation.

However, Clinton DID deploy US troops to more locations than any US President in history, but only to "low intensity" conflicts... I know this well because I was an Army Ranger from 1993 to 1997 and went to Haiti and my brother went to Bosnia. At the same time he drastically cut military spending and was VERY unpopular with the troops- I never once met a Clinton supporter in the military. So if he DId invade Iraq, he would have done it poorly and with too much attention on media reporting and puplic opinion instead of letting Generals do what they need to do. Luckily he was limited to 2 terms!

Well said. Awesome post

We went to a summit in 1938 with Germany. The world thinks we're suckers!

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: headboxSo if he DId invade Iraq, he would have done it poorly and with too much attention on media reporting and puplic opinion instead of letting Generals do what they need to do. Luckily he was limited to 2 terms!

Sure sounds like GWB to me ^^^ You are correct, thankfully he is limited to 2 terms!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Genx87

I question if 9/11 would have happened in the first place with him as President. You have to admit that Bush did a fine job of causing large amounts of disfavor towards the US. With regards to "liar ability" I'd say Clinton was a better liar (beyond what is required to convince the American people) but he didn't have the cajones to lie about the things that Bush has lied about. I love when Bush almost winks when he lies sometimes - it's sort of funny.

Plans for 9-11 started as far back as 1997. Then you throw in WTC bombings, Kholbar Towers, African Ambassy bombings, and the USS Cole. I think it is safe to say 9-11 would have happened just as planned. Clinton was uncapable with dealing with terrorism.

The WTC 1 bombing happened just after Clinton took office. really unfair to put the blame on him.


Double standard again? 9/11 happened just after Bush took office. really unfair to put the blame on him.

Clinton actively went after any terrorists that commited terrorists acts and brought them to justice. Just do a simple search you will see. If we are on the topic about bringing people to justice why did bush make the comment that he doesnt care about OBL any more ?

Got any links to back that up? I didn't find any.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Genx87

I question if 9/11 would have happened in the first place with him as President. You have to admit that Bush did a fine job of causing large amounts of disfavor towards the US. With regards to "liar ability" I'd say Clinton was a better liar (beyond what is required to convince the American people) but he didn't have the cajones to lie about the things that Bush has lied about. I love when Bush almost winks when he lies sometimes - it's sort of funny.

Plans for 9-11 started as far back as 1997. Then you throw in WTC bombings, Kholbar Towers, African Ambassy bombings, and the USS Cole. I think it is safe to say 9-11 would have happened just as planned. Clinton was uncapable with dealing with terrorism.

Wow.

First the USS cole happened at the end of clintons term and the investigation ended in bushes term and bush did not follow up with it.

Huh? Not up on the news?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/15/cole.bombing.charges/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal grand jury Thursday indicted two men with helping the al Qaeda terrorist group plan the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, a move U.S. officials said was designed to speed their capture.

Fahd Al-Quso and Jamal Mohammad Ahmad Ali Al-Badawi, both citizens of Yemen, were charged with 50 counts of terrorism offenses, including murder of U.S. nationals and murder of U.S. military personnel.

...more at the link

The WTC 1 bombing happened just after Clinton took office. really unfair to put the blame on him.

9/11 happened shortly after Bush took office. Plenty seem to want to place the blame directly on his shoulders.

Not only that, but the FBI knew of the plan to bomb the WTC over a year earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

FBI foreknowledge
In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, who was involved with the bombing conspiracy. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem asserts that the original plan was to have the plotters build the bomb using a harmless powder instead of actual explosive, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be constructed instead. He substantiates his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings.

Salem says he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office.

The FBI has not explicitly denied Salem's account.

Clinton actively went after any terrorists that commited terrorists acts and brought them to justice. Just do a simple search you will see. If we are on the topic about bringing people to justice why did bush make the comment that he doesnt care about OBL any more ?

Who did Clinton bring to justice?

WTC bombing, and Tim McVeigh.
Those were the big terrorist acts of the 90's on US soil.
Don't forget Republicans were more interested in hunting Clinton than terrorists in the 90's.

Embassies are US soil!!!!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Genx87

read what I wrote again and then realize why you need to read more carefully - I didn't say it would stop it - I said it possibly could have. Christ - if a different president was elected in some other country it could have changed something minor that could have caused this not to happen. The whole premise of trying to predict what would happen with a different president in office is pretty stupid - no one could possibly do it. There are just too many variables - known and unknown.

Read what I said. It isnt impossible to tell as OBL has been attacking and probing us since the early 1990s. You imply it "might" be possible. I am telling you it isnt possible 9-11 wouldnt have happened.

This isnt stupid. OBL started planning this in 1997 so if Clinton could run for a 3rd term and won, he wouldnt have called it off.

What indication except for your fantasy world gives you an inclination it could have possibly not happened if Clinton was elected to a 3rd term?

So I guess it was fate that OBL succeeded? No possible change in conditions caused by altering history could have stopped him? I'd argue with you more but you are beyond reason. You can't predict what would have happened - it's simply impossble. Me living in a fantasy world? Did you call up your favorite psychic hotline (the same one that told you what would happen when you change out an entire administration) to get that one? To make this more clear from you (since you obviously don't get the point and just think I'm being partisian) I'll lay out what I think if other things had happened...

CHANGE: Clinton gets a third term
POSSIBLE OUTCOME: OBL potentially stopped b/c of a different people in the admin and therefore different decisions made

CHANGE: McCain gets the nomination - becomes president back in 2000
POSSIBLE OUTCOME: OBL potentially stopped b/c of a different people in the admin and therefore different decisions made

CHANGE: Al Gore wins in 2000
POSSIBLE OUTCOME: OBL potentially stopped b/c of a different people in the admin and therefore different decisions made

or an even smaller change....

CHANGE: GW chooses different advisors, etc.
POSSIBLE OUTCOME: OBL potentially stopped b/c of a different people in the admin and therefore different decisions made

etc....

Yeah, sweet love conquers all!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BBond
OMG, when will you people finally cut the Clinton umbilical cord???

Would Clinton have invaded Iraq??? What a useless excercise. What is the point of this circle jerk? It's all conjecture designed to take the focus off the idiot who DID invade Iraq.

The question we should be asking ourselves is "Should GWB have invaded Iraq?" That hypothetical argument has much more merit then "What would have Clinton done??" It doesn't matter, he isn't President. Let's hold the current President accountable for his actions and words.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Don't forget Republicans were more interested in hunting Clinton than terrorists in the 90's.

Republicans weren't at the helm of the ship in the 90s...the legislative branch has no authority to pursue and eliminate America's enemies...national security, and having a vision for national security, remains in the hands of the President and his National Security advisors.

Perhaps Clinton was more interested in screwing interns then pursuing terrorists...if you want to blame this on Republicans, look to Reagan's Cold War policies and how they set the stage for the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq...but don't fool yourself into thinking that Clinton was not at least partially asleep behind the wheel.

He was not asleep at the wheel at all. The republicans should have let him do his job instead of wasting his time over a BJ. When Clinton bombed terrorist camps, Republicans dismissed it as wagging the dog. Then they come around and criticize him for not doing more. Those attacks came closer to killing Bin Laden than anything Bush has done so far, and that was all before 9/11. Bush did absolutely nothing about Bin Laden prior to 9/11, and has other priorities now.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Condor


Yeah, sweet love conquers all!

I'm missing the joke 😛

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: outriding

Clinton actively went after any terrorists that commited terrorists acts and brought them to justice. Just do a simple search you will see. If we are on the topic about bringing people to justice why did bush make the comment that he doesnt care about OBL any more ?

right! - Osama's binForgotten! Because Bush doesn't have the balls or ability to find him! Not after 3.5 years! Pretty sad that the almighty US/Bush can't track down a single, POWERFUL, man!

This all just shows what a failure Bush & his Regime of talk-talk-talk Goons are!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: outriding

Clinton actively went after any terrorists that commited terrorists acts and brought them to justice. Just do a simple search you will see. If we are on the topic about bringing people to justice why did bush make the comment that he doesnt care about OBL any more ?

right! - Osama's binForgotten! Because Bush doesn't have the balls or ability to find him! Not after 3.5 years! Pretty sad that the almighty US/Bush can't track down a single, POWERFUL, man!

This all just shows what a failure Bush & his Regime of talk-talk-talk Goons are!

I really wish people would find out some of the facts behind why bin Laden can't be apprehended at this point in time instead of just mouthing off about failure blah, blah, blah.

Bleh. What difference does it make? It seems most of the RBH'rs in here would rather remain clueless so they can spew rhetorical vomit all day.

 

[MoFunk]

Listen, I despise Clinton but he is not directly involved with these events, they would have happened regardless of who would have been in office. Terroroists are not attacking our President, they are attacking the US in general. What I do hold Clinton accountable for is that he lied BOLD faced to MY FACE DIRECTLY. Shortly after my brother was killed in the Khobar Towers bombing I had the chance to sit and chat with him. He gave me the same old speach. He said "Son, I promise that whoever was behind this will be brought to justice, regardless what we have to do." Some time after that Louis Freeh went into Clintons office and said "Sir, here is all the evidence you need regarding Khobar Towers, here are the people involved and here is the country behind it. They trained the poeple for it, they funded it, they gave the order." Bill did nothing! NOTHING! I know he was not responsible for the attack, but he is responsible for the after effects of his not doing anything. Bottom line is that all the above mentioned acts of terrorism were acts of war, and were not responded to. 9/11 happened because we are a nation full of pussies and the terrorists know it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: syzygy
Topic Title: Would Bill Clinton have invaded Iraq ?

I don't think he would've sent in the full Military under a false pretense of WMD.