Would Bill Clinton have invaded Iraq ?

[ParStyles]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

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.

it's impossible to really tell - I just thinking a different world political climate might have possibly changed things. refer to one of my previous posts in this thread....

Right, because the different political climate with Clinton if office changed all the things that happened before 9/11?

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I believe Clinton would have been more likely to finish the job in Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden and concentrate on Al Qaeda rather thanjumping the shark like the Dub did by invading Iraq. I also believe that he wouldn't have alienated our European Allies like the Dub did.

I would love to believe that but his track record speaks for itself. A few cruise missles at an aspirin factory. Most likley would have lobbed a few bombs at a camel farm in SE Afghanistan and called it even.

Soil samples ofter the bombing of the asprin factory said there was more than asprin being made there.

 

[Genx87]

it's impossible to really tell - I just thinking a different world political climate might have possibly changed things. refer to one of my previous posts in this thread....

No it isnt. OBL declared a holy war against the United States and was systematically hitting us harder every time during the 1990s. Clintons lack of desire to confront the issue only let it fester. Bush senior is in the same boat as Clinton on this.

Saying just because if Clinton was in office it wouldnt have happened is laughable.

Soil samples ofter the bombing of the asprin factory said there was more than asprin being made there

Do tell and let us know what was being made there with valid links to back it up.

 

[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.

The WTC 1 bombing happened just after Clinton 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 ?

 

[Genx87]

Wow.

i agree

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.

First apology

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

Second apology

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 was brought to justice?

btw Lenin had a phrase for apologists.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Genx87

it's impossible to really tell - I just thinking a different world political climate might have possibly changed things. refer to one of my previous posts in this thread....

No it isnt. OBL declared a holy war against the United States and was systematically hitting us harder every time during the 1990s. Clintons lack of desire to confront the issue only let it fester. Bush senior is in the same boat as Clinton on this.

Saying just because if Clinton was in office it wouldnt have happened is laughable.

Soil samples ofter the bombing of the asprin factory said there was more than asprin being made there

Do tell and let us know what was being made there with valid links to back it up.

1

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Wow.

i agree

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.

First apology

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

Second apology

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 was brought to justice?

btw Lenin had a phrase for apologists.

You talk about me being an apologist but you offer no reason why bush still doenst not go after the people that were responiblse for the cole and OBL.

 

[Genx87]

I hate to break it to you. But even the Bush administration said the evidence was not good enough. Most liberals will tell you they used little evidence to backup their claims of WMD in Iraq. If it wasnt even good enough for Bush then it had to be pretty bad 😉

I am curious what the samples were like in the complex. Not in soil samples 60 yards from the place.

Also if there was solid evidence of this why nobody has used it? This is a very good indication of the level of cooperation between Iraq and AlQuaeda.

 

[Genx87]

You talk about me being an apologist but you offer no reason why bush still doenst not go after the people that were responiblse for the cole and OBL.

You dont think having boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is going after the terrorists responsible for these attacks?!?!?!?!?

What else do you suggest?

 

[dannybin1742]

clinton would have been more worried about the fbi reports that the bush administration overlooked in the summer of 2001, not to mension he would have been concentrating on bringing the economy out of recession and we would not have a huge budget deficit from an unwarranted tax cut or excessive military spending, the schools would still be funded

 

[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?

 

[piasabird]

The USA has a non-aggression aggreement with Saudia Arabia which states we will not attack them as long as they supply us with oil. You should realize that this agreement goes all the way back to Rosevelt (Sell). The agreement is mutually beneficial for both parties. It is contingent of them supplying us with oil. If they break their aggreement we will consider it null and void.

In the 1970's they tried to cut off the supply and Kissinger told them to expect an invasion if the supply was not given to us. This is a serious agreement not to be taken lightly.

Attacking your main supply of Oil is a serious matter. It has serious worldwide implications. The entire world would fall into chaos within 1 month of attacking Saudia Arabia. Gas prices would sky rocket and the supply would dry up.

I saw a detailed documentary on our relationship with Saudia Arabia this week on the TV and it was quite interesting.

 

[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.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The USA has a non-aggression aggreement with Saudia Arabia which states we will not attack them as long as they supply us with oil. You should realize that this agreement goes all the way back to Rosevelt (Sell). The agreement is mutually beneficial for both parties. It is contingent of them supplying us with oil. If they break their aggreement we will consider it null and void.

In the 1970's they tried to cut off the supply and Kissinger told them to expect an invasion if the supply was not given to us. This is a serious agreement not to be taken lightly.

Attacking your main supply of Oil is a serious matter. It has serious worldwide implications. The entire world would fall into chaos within 1 month of attacking Saudia Arabia. Gas prices would sky rocket and the supply would dry up.

I saw a detailed documentary on our relationship with Saudia Arabia this week on the TV and it was quite interesting.

Was it the one shown on PBS? If so, I saw that same documentary. It was very interesting. It demonstrated the close ties between the Saud family and Bush, as well as practically every president that has come before since we've had a relationship with them.

And you are exactly correct. There's no way we could invade SA. That's why we withdrew our troops from SA and did the next best thing instead - We invaded Iraq and parked ourselves right next door. That's the real reason we went into Iraq. Those who want to pretend that going into Iraq was only about Iraq/Saddam/WMDs seem to refuse to recognize that though. Recognizing that tends to broaden the scope of the potential legitimacy of reasoning for invading Iraq in a direction that they don't want to seem to go.

 

[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.

 

[arsbanned]

Once again Frontline produces an excellent, excellent piece:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/

(beautiful Web Sites too btw. )

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: syzygy
clinton had shown some mettle to intervene. some. not much, but enough perhaps to presage his decision to topple saddam by multi-lateral means if he had been able to serve a third term.

why ? four reasons :

1 - saddam would have been HIS problem for ten years at that point. he knew saddam had offered osama sanctuary in 2000 when the taliban were considering the remote possibility of shipping the master terrorist to a third state friendly. he knew that saddam and his minions had been flirting with osama and his people for many years. he knew that war against saddam had already been mapped by his own people as an eventuality against continue diplomatic failures.

He offered him haven? Or are you talking about the whole things with Zarqawi, which, at the time, had nothing to do with al Qaeda? Either way, it was in the Kurdish region, which we controlled.

2 - one major lesson from 9/11 is zero tolerance for rogue sovereign states who harbor, sponsor, and aid terrorist organizations. saddam was egging the world with his unrivaled support for terrorist organizations, leading a state that in itself functioned as a terrorist organization, and refusing to comply with diplomatic entreaties from multiple fronts. he had spoken with richard butler, knew intimately the ba'athist lies and evasions from rolf eckaus, and had been an upfront witness to endless talk-diplomacy wrangling.

Unrivaled support for terrorism? Which terrorists? Do you mean his weak attempt at sucking up the Arabs/Muslims by giving money to Palestinian suicide bomber families?

i don't know how you can minimize saddam's support for palestinian terrorists as 'sucking up' when the net effects of his aid to them is the same nonetheless (i.e. supports terrorism - my original point, which you confirmed without knowing).

other terrorists ? his avowed support for the pkk, iranian mujahedin, abu nidal organization (centered in baghdad), and other individuals with allegiances to islamo-fascists. i'm curious what sophistry is stirring in your mind to explain away these examples.

if you need links, literature references, articles from reputable magazines . . . ask.

4 - clinton had shown a begrudged willingness to intervene when the enormity of the crime could no longer escape the legal maneuvers and historical fears. there is one critical exception to this (rwanda) but that example failed because of the remote geopolitical natiure of the ordeal. not anymore thought. he admitted fauilure to not doing more to help the people against a government determined to exterminate them. the seed was layed, watered by his contrition, that military intervention should be a more likely consideration regardless of how remote the center of atrocities is. iraq was not remote. iraq had tied up his government's attention for a decade. all the talk, all the pleas, all the failure, would have been his.

Sure, Saddam was deceitful and tried his best to make himself look like as much of a threat as possible, but he wasn't. And overall, compared to other nations under brutal regimes, he was rather weak. His military lacked power, his country was mostly not under his control and his neighbors hated him. Knowing Clinton would use force (remember, Clinton was criticized heavily for his excessive use of cruise missiles) if the circumstances were serious enough (not in violence, but in political gravity/consequences towards us or allies), why bother with Iraq?

i'm not interested in your ex post facto analysis. if you had better information than our intelligence services en toto, or those of italy, great britian, australia, germany, france, and russia, and the united nations (14-0 approval for res. 1441), then you should have come forward then.

while there were disenting opinions - there always is - the majority view held by these nations what that saddam's continued unwillingness to fully comply with u.n. demands made the ba'athist state a pariah, a rogue, of lethal murkiness, that we should not have to tolerate in our consciouness.

congress and clinton were well aware of this, in 1998, when the edict sanctioning forced regime change came down. with legal foresight, they planned for that eventuality, and bush simply executed it. now, as to whether clinton would have done so is debateable.

 

[NightCrawler]

Clinton would have invaded another intern.

 

[Red Dawn]

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

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

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Genx87

it's impossible to really tell - I just thinking a different world political climate might have possibly changed things. refer to one of my previous posts in this thread....

No it isnt. OBL declared a holy war against the United States and was systematically hitting us harder every time during the 1990s. Clintons lack of desire to confront the issue only let it fester. Bush senior is in the same boat as Clinton on this.

Saying just because if Clinton was in office it wouldnt have happened is laughable.

Soil samples ofter the bombing of the asprin factory said there was more than asprin being made there

Do tell and let us know what was being made there with valid links to back it up.

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.

 

[Tommunist]

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.

naw - let's divert to an issue that doesn't matter like we do with almost all politics now - the RR groups are ruining the republican party and this country...

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I believe Clinton would have been more likely to finish the job in Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden and concentrate on Al Qaeda rather thanjumping the shark like the Dub did by invading Iraq. I also believe that he wouldn't have alienated our European Allies like the Dub did.

I would love to believe that but his track record speaks for itself. A few cruise missles at an aspirin factory. Most likley would have lobbed a few bombs at a camel farm in SE Afghanistan and called it even.

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.

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.

 

[Tom]

"9/11 happened shortly after Bush took office."

yea, he only had time for 5 or 6 vacations in those 9 months.



(not blaming Bush for the attack, just pointing out 9 months isn't "shortly")

 

[imported_Snagle]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Once again Frontline produces an excellent, excellent piece:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/

(beautiful Web Sites too btw. )

I caught that tuesday night, it was fantastic (just like all Frontline episodes). I tivo'd it too and now I have it on DVD for future reference 🙂

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Wow.

i agree

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.

First apology

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

Second apology

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 was brought to justice?

btw Lenin had a phrase for apologists.

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