Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 85
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Jokes aside: Clinton pointed to a problem, the (international) pressure was stepped up, causing Saddam to get rid of the WMD he had left (even if he didn't admit it freely). Problem contained without war.
    Textbook appeasing weak-minded wishful thinking that gave us "Hitler will stop at Poland". You really think Saddam destroyed all his WMD on his own? Where are the records of this? I realize large quantities haven't been found after the war - but the key there is AFTER the war. As you admit, he acted as if he had them and was hiding them. Believing he destroyed them on his own in the absence of any evidence is delusional.

    At any rate, we've covered this before.

    Your side doesn't believe a WMD armed Iraq that was hostile to the US was a threat to ever attack us through Al Qaeda proxies with them. My side disagrees and was not willing to bet one of our cities on who was right.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Clinton pointed to a problem, the (international) pressure was stepped up, causing Saddam to get rid of the WMD he had left (even if he didn't admit it freely). Problem contained without war.
    Could have been a valid point except of what Bill Clinton said in 2001:

    "Saddam Hussein is not a good man by our definition," said the former president. "There's no question ... he has significant stocks of chemical and biological agents."

    "I think we have to assume that if he knows we're coming ... he'll do everything he can to use them," said Mr. Clinton. "That's the only risk ... it's an issue the president has to address."
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in521036.shtml
    He was not for going in after Saddam at that time, but recognized the fact that Saddam had WMDs.

    Al Gore also stated on Sept. 23, 2002, a year after Bush took office and 6 months prior to the current Iraq War:

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    And according to a transcpipt directly from Hillary Clinton website stated the following on October 10, 2002 concerning the S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, which she did eventually vote for after we got our Resolution from the UN.

    Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

    In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

    As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

    In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

    In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

    In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

    It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

    Now this much is undisputed.

    FULL TRANSCRIPT AS DELIVERED ON THE SENATE FLOOR: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

    Here is also an interesting comentary with some thought provoking points as it relates to the claims and charges about our actions and current situation with Iraq, including a quote for Gore's support that Saddam was still stock piling WMDs in 2002, just 5 months prior to the start of the current Iraq war:


    On Iraq, Short Memories

    By Robert Kagan

    Monday, September 12, 2005


    [QUOTE]If you read even respectable journals these days, including this one, you would think that no more than six or seven people ever supported going to war in Iraq. A recent piece in The Post's Style section suggested that the war was an "idea" that President Bush "dusted off" five years after Bill Kristol and I came up with it in the Weekly Standard.

    That's not the way I recall it. I recall support for removing Saddam Hussein by force being pretty widespread from the late 1990s through the spring of 2003, among Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, as well as neoconservatives. We all had the same information, and we got it from the same sources. I certainly had never based my judgment on American intelligence, faulty or otherwise, much less on the intelligence produced by the Bush administration before the war. I don't think anyone else did either. I had formed my impressions during the 1990s entirely on the basis of what I regarded as two fairly reliable sources: the U.N. weapons inspectors, led first by Rolf Ekeus and then by Richard Butler; and senior Clinton administration officials, especially President Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen and Al Gore.

    ----------

    In his second term Clinton and his top advisers concluded that Hussein's continued rule was dangerous, if not intolerable. Albright called explicitly for his ouster as a precondition for lifting sanctions. And it was in the midst of that big confrontation, in December 1997, that Kristol and I argued what the Clinton administration was already arguing: that containment was no longer an adequate policy for dealing with Saddam Hussein. In January 1998 I joined several others in a letter to the president insisting that "the only acceptable strategy" was one that eliminated "the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction." That meant "a willingness to undertake military action" and eventually "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power." The signatories included Francis Fukuyama, Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick.

    About a year later, the Senate passed a resolution, co-sponsored by Joseph Lieberman and John McCain, providing $100 million for the forcible overthrow of Hussein. It passed with 98 votes.

    ------------------

    The Clinton administration responded by launching a campaign to prepare the nation for war. I remember listening to Albright compare Hussein to Hitler and warn that if not stopped, "he could in fact somehow use his weapons of mass destruction" or "could kind of become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction." I remember Cohen appearing on television with a five-pound bag of sugar and explaining that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C. Even as late as September 2002, Gore gave a speech insisting that Hussein "has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."

    ------------------------

    I recall broad bipartisan support for removing Hussein right up to the eve of the war. In March 2003, just before the invasion, I signed a letter in support of the war along with a number of former Clinton officials, including deputy national security adviser James Steinberg, ambassador Peter Galbraith, ambassador Dennis Ross, ambassador Martin Indyk, Ivo Daalder, Ronald Asmus and ambassador Robert Gelbard.

    FULL STORY: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091101086.html[QUOTE]

    Just 6 months prior the start of the current Iraq war John Kerry on October 9, 2002 said the following concerning Iraq while pointing to intel long before Bush came into office to support his argument:

    "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry,
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Could have been a valid point except of what Bill Clinton said in 2001:

    He was not for going in after Saddam at that time, but recognized the fact that Saddam had WMDs.

    Al Gore also stated on Sept. 23, 2002, a year after Bush took office and 6 months prior to the current Iraq War:



    And according to a transcpipt directly from Hillary Clinton website stated the following on October 10, 2002 concerning the S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, which she did eventually vote for after we got our Resolution from the UN.




    Here is also an interesting comentary with some thought provoking points as it relates to the claims and charges about our actions and current situation with Iraq, including a quote for Gore's support that Saddam was still stock piling WMDs in 2002, just 5 months prior to the start of the current Iraq war:


    On Iraq, Short Memories

    By Robert Kagan

    Monday, September 12, 2005


    If you read even respectable journals these days, including this one, you would think that no more than six or seven people ever supported going to war in Iraq. A recent piece in The Post's Style section suggested that the war was an "idea" that President Bush "dusted off" five years after Bill Kristol and I came up with it in the Weekly Standard.

    That's not the way I recall it. I recall support for removing Saddam Hussein by force being pretty widespread from the late 1990s through the spring of 2003, among Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, as well as neoconservatives. We all had the same information, and we got it from the same sources. I certainly had never based my judgment on American intelligence, faulty or otherwise, much less on the intelligence produced by the Bush administration before the war. I don't think anyone else did either. I had formed my impressions during the 1990s entirely on the basis of what I regarded as two fairly reliable sources: the U.N. weapons inspectors, led first by Rolf Ekeus and then by Richard Butler; and senior Clinton administration officials, especially President Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen and Al Gore.

    ----------

    In his second term Clinton and his top advisers concluded that Hussein's continued rule was dangerous, if not intolerable. Albright called explicitly for his ouster as a precondition for lifting sanctions. And it was in the midst of that big confrontation, in December 1997, that Kristol and I argued what the Clinton administration was already arguing: that containment was no longer an adequate policy for dealing with Saddam Hussein. In January 1998 I joined several others in a letter to the president insisting that "the only acceptable strategy" was one that eliminated "the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction." That meant "a willingness to undertake military action" and eventually "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power." The signatories included Francis Fukuyama, Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick.

    About a year later, the Senate passed a resolution, co-sponsored by Joseph Lieberman and John McCain, providing $100 million for the forcible overthrow of Hussein. It passed with 98 votes.

    ------------------

    The Clinton administration responded by launching a campaign to prepare the nation for war. I remember listening to Albright compare Hussein to Hitler and warn that if not stopped, "he could in fact somehow use his weapons of mass destruction" or "could kind of become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction." I remember Cohen appearing on television with a five-pound bag of sugar and explaining that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C. Even as late as September 2002, Gore gave a speech insisting that Hussein "has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    The only problem with this whole line of logic is that none of those people thought it required US military intervention.
    Last edited by NRG; 12/09/2005 at 09:25 PM.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The only problem with this whole line of logic is that none of those people thought I required US military intervention.
    So what was Operation Desert Fox then if not a military intervention?

    Prior to 9/11 Iraq was not deemed a direct threat to the US. 9/11 changed how we calculated such threats. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I might also remind you that Clinton (and her husband...) did in fact support the invasion - at least until the political winds began to shift.

    And therein lies the difference. The war is not as politically popular now as it was in 2003. Nothing on the ground has really changed in the last year to cause politicians like Clinton to shift their positions. Their position of opposition is entirely political and frankly is sickening.

    Your ***** presidential candidate from last year called US troops terrorists. What do you suppose that does to troop morale? Your ***** party chairman said we can win the war. What do you think that does to morale?

    The only upside as I see it is that these two are virtually ensuring the Dems will completely fumble whatever mid-term gains they'd hoped to make next year.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    So what was Operation Desert Fox then if not a military intervention?

    Prior to 9/11 Iraq was not deemed a direct threat to the US. 9/11 changed how we calculated such threats. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I might also remind you that Clinton (and her husband...) did in fact support the invasion - at least until the political winds began to shift.

    And therein lies the difference. The war is not as politically popular now as it was in 2003. Nothing on the ground has really changed in the last year to cause politicians like Clinton to shift their positions. Their position of opposition is entirely political and frankly is sickening.

    Your ***** presidential candidate from last year called US troops terrorists. What do you suppose that does to troop morale? Your ***** party chairman said we can win the war. What do you think that does to morale?

    The only upside as I see it is that these two are virtually ensuring the Dems will completely fumble whatever mid-term gains they'd hoped to make next year.
    Um, P, address the issue at hand.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The only problem with this whole line of logic is that none of those people thought it required US military intervention.
    Except when they voted to authorize Bush to use military force in Oct 2002. Which is within a month of all the quotes I listed above.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    One only has to look to the Neo-Con website for how far back their plans go.
    I used Google to find the references... ...does that count?

    Or was my reference from the Cornell University Library the one?

    Or does my reference from Global Security.org count?

    Or my reference from the Federation of American Scientists might have been it?

    Or maybe my quote from the Washington post was the neo-con website you were referring to?

    Maybe it was the Columbia University referenced website?

    But wait....I did reference a Fox News article, that must of been the one you were talking about?

    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/09/2005 at 09:51 PM.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Um, P, address the issue at hand.
    Sorry. I'll spell it out for you. You said:
    The only problem with this whole line of logic is that none of those people thought it required US military intervention.
    If Bill Clinton had been president during and after 9/11 he would have done exactly the same thing George W. Bush did. His words up until the point the political winds shifted tell us so. Most Democrats voted to authorize the Iraq War.

    Almost all of the current opposition has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with Bush. I find that disturbing.

    Was there some other issue I should deal with for the umpteenth time?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Where does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
    Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11, but 9/11 totally changed our outlook of the threat of Saddam and Iraq.....for both Reps and for Dems.

    Whether those views have changed again today is a totally different subject. The object of evaluating any event in history is to look at what actions, statements, choices, etc...where made with the knowledge believed to be true AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/09/2005 at 09:54 PM.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Sorry. I'll spell it out for you. You said:

    If Bill Clinton had been president during and after 9/11 he would have done exactly the same thing George W. Bush did. His words up until the point the political winds shifted tell us so.
    Now we are just speculating, or assuming. You know what happens when we ***-u-me.

    Almost all of the current opposition has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with Bush. I find that disturbing.

    Was there some other issue I should deal with for the umpteenth time?
    Bush invaded, previous admins did not, therefore it is going to focus on Bush, naturally.

    Most Democrats voted to authorize the Iraq War.
    So what?!! Bad info constructed via OSP would have gotten just about anyone to vote for it.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Most Democrats voted to authorize the Iraq War.
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    So what?!! Bad info constructed via OSP would have gotten just about anyone to vote for it.
    Including Bush....again all being held to the same standard with the info available at the time decisions were made.
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I used Google to find the references... ...does that count?

    Or was my reference from the Cornell University Library the one?

    Or does my reference from Global Security.org count?

    Or my reference from the Federation of American Scientists might have been it?

    Or maybe my quote from the Washington post was the neo-con website you were referring to?

    Maybe it was the Columbia University referenced website?

    But wait....I did reference a Fox News article, that must of been the one you were talking about?

    I think he meant www.newamericancentury.org .
  13. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Including Bush....again all being held to the same standard with the info available at the time decisions were made.
    Calling bull**** on that. Be real, If you think the President did not have access to more sensitive info than congress you are out of your mind. That is not a safe corner to run to Hobbes.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I think he meant www.newamericancentury.org .
    But that was only one of all the others that shared all the exact information. If that was the case, it is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    But that was only one of all the others that shared all the exact information. If that was the case, it is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    Give me primer would ya Hobbes Iam lost.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Calling bull**** on that. Be real, If you think the President did not have access to more sensitive info than congress you are out of your mind. That is not a safe corner to run to Hobbes.
    Again, you have made the assumption that Bush was the ONLY one handling intel.

    If you noticed that a lot of the quotes above were even referring to intel from the Clinton admin. In fact that was a major part of the intel used. The Senate intel committee does have access raw data and CIA analysts to assist in their developing their own opinion.

    You would also have to discard the intel from the UN, France, Germany, Russia, Great Britian, Turkey, Isreal, Italy, etc.... as they also presented much of the same information and came to very similiar conclusions. The will to act on that information varies, but the intel was consistant both for and against Iraq from all sources.

    If your assumption that intel Bush handled was the single and only source available at the time while not recognizing any other of the sources worldwide, then yes you would have a valid point IMHO
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Calling bull**** on that. Be real, If you think the President did not have access to more sensitive info than congress you are out of your mind. That is not a safe corner to run to Hobbes.
    The Intelligence Oversight Committee get the exact same briefings the prez does. John Kerry's on that committee, BTW.

    I know this because during the last election he acknowledged not being there for many briefings about this very subject... If he wasn't informed of anything it wasn't Bush's fault.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The Intelligence Oversight Committee get the exact same briefings the prez does. John Kerry's on that committee, BTW.

    I know this because during the last election he acknowledged not being there for many briefings about this very subject... If he wasn't informed of anything it wasn't Bush's fault.
    LOL.

    Now come on P, does the Pres. get intel congress doesn't?
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Again, you have made the assumption that Bush was the ONLY one handling intel.
    No, I didn't the OSP was who I claimed handled the intel for Bush.

    If you noticed that a lot of the quotes above were even referring to intel from the Clinton admin. In fact that was a major part of the intel used. The Senate intel committee does have access raw data and CIA analysts to assist in their developing their own opinion.
    As I noted before most of those quotes from the Clinton did not warrant an invasion as Clinton saw it. Plus, as far as Intel committee is concerned should they not trust Bush?

    You would also have discard the intel from the UN, France, Germany, Russia, Great Britian, Turkey, Isreal, Italy, etc.... as they also presented much of the same information and came to very similiar conclusions. The will to act on that information varies, but the intel was consistant both for and against Iraq from all sources.
    Again, most of those did not feel his was an IMEDDIATE threat.

    If your assumption that intel Bush handled was the single and only source available at the time while not recognizing any other of the sources worldwide, then yes you would have a valid point IMHO
    Why has no one been fired for the mistakes in the Intel?
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    LOL.

    Now come on P, does the Pres. get intel congress doesn't?
    You didn't know the oversight committee got the same briefings?

    This is a fact. I'm sorry if it's inconvenient.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions