Clinton vs. Bush on Iraq

[grantpk]

Transferring this thread to a more appropriate group.

Quietly protesting is another way of saying that you did nothing.

What I meant that I talked to friends and relatives about the issues concerning Bush's then apparent desire to invade Iraq.  After learning more about the situation, I became an active protester, as I already said in an earlier post.

Also, either you are one of those far left fanatics that believe we should have surrendered after 9/11 and would be content with all of us wearing a turban or

Wow!  Do I detect some anger here?  What makes you think that I advocated surrender or turban wearing?  I fully supported our entry into Afghanistan -- although now I'm not so sure that was the right thing to do; or at least we didn't do it the right way.  Seems that Iraq drew attention away from what we should have done in the first place:  find OBL!!

you are clueless to the fact that no intelligence agency in the world got it right and you want to whine about Bush.

Please, let's refrain from personal insults. 

Well, I don't know which intelligence agencies may have gotten it right, but your implication - and previous statements - that the whole world thought Saddam had WMD is simply not true.  There were many countries that openly contested Bushe's WMD claims, especially just before the invasion when UNMOVIC failed to find any significant violations.  (Yeah, I remember the SCUD missiles with 165km range; a whopping 10% over the limit imposed by the UN.)

Are you even aware that Clinton did as much as Bush has done but just did not use ground troops?

Errr.. as much as Bush???  Even the official Bush admin's casualty estimates of Iraqis, which I believe are WAY understated, are hundreds of times the deaths caused by Clinton's actions. 

The ENTIRE Clinton Presidency saw the USA constantly bombing Iraq, where was your protesting then?

Entire???  Constantly???  Let's be a little - no a lot - more realistic. 

[FoulBreeze]

Wow!  Do I detect some anger here?  What makes you think that I advocated surrender or turban wearing?  I fully supported our entry into Afghanistan -- although now I'm not so sure that was the right thing to do; or at least we didn't do it the right way.  Seems that Iraq drew attention away from what we should have done in the first place:  find OBL!!

According to the current Texo-Fascist Based Regime we have in DC, we cannot quit Iraq and stay involved in Afghanistan, because it was a 2 for 1 package. How do you expect Lindsay Graham, George Bush, Bob Corxxer, Lame Alexander, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza to look CEOs from Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell, & BP in the face and say, "Okay, I know Conoco-Philips got their Afghanistan Natural Gas deal, but our country's running outta patience on this Iraqi Oil deal."

Do you think any of those Fascists have the gall to tell their benefactors the truth? No, they don't, and now they're afraid that there'll be harsh feelings amoungst their brood, for Conoco got what they wanted, but the others didn't get their stuff.

[TLC1ST]

And you know this because someone on the inside confides in you.

[FoulBreeze]

Darth Cheney met with executives from Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell, & BP behind closed doors, in March of 2001, with Darth's Secret Energy Task Force.

Couldn't get them to release the minutes, but Judicial Watch DID get the map they used to sub-divide post-war Iraqi Oil fields. Just have to think back a little bit in recent American History. Production Sharing Agreements becomes Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law becomes Iraqi Oil Law, etc., etc. They'll change the name again next month, when the Iraqis agree again, that the big Oil Hoors WON'T GET THEIR OIL.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf

[JosephBaileyOne]

Transferring this thread to a more appropriate group.

What I meant that I talked to friends and relatives about the issues concerning Bush's then apparent desire to invade Iraq.  After learning more about the situation, I became an active protester, as I already said in an earlier post.

Wow!  Do I detect some anger here?  What makes you think that I advocated surrender or turban wearing?  I fully supported our entry into Afghanistan -- although now I'm not so sure that was the right thing to do; or at least we didn't do it the right way.  Seems that Iraq drew attention away from what we should have done in the first place:  find OBL!!

Please, let's refrain from personal insults. 

Well, I don't know which intelligence agencies may have gotten it right, but your implication - and previous statements - that the whole world thought Saddam had WMD is simply not true.  There were many countries that openly contested Bushe's WMD claims, especially just before the invasion when UNMOVIC failed to find any significant violations.  (Yeah, I remember the SCUD missiles with 165km range; a whopping 10% over the limit imposed by the UN.)

Errr.. as much as Bush???  Even the official Bush admin's casualty estimates of Iraqis, which I believe are WAY understated, are hundreds of times the deaths caused by Clinton's actions. 

Entire???  Constantly???  Let's be a little - no a lot - more realistic. 

I suggest that you get your facts straight.

One, if Richard Butler, the former UN Arms Inspector, who argued a FULL YEAR before Bush was even elected, that Hussein was the world's number one security threat, then that means nothing to you?  Also, he is an AUSTRALIAN by the way.  Add in that every last one of the top intelligence agencies, including the Mossadd, thought that Hussein had WMD's, the issue still is were did they go?

Two, President Clinton had issued orders that were carried out that had the USA bombing Iraq on almost 24/7 basis and you need to get your facts straight on it too.  It was in 1998 that Clinton signed an Executive Order authorizing the USA to do whatever it could for regime change in Iraq. 

Three, if you now do not support the action in Afghanistan, then that is typical of a great many on the far left that have actually advocated surrendering since of course, the USA is to blame for all of the world's problems and in this way we can prove to the radical's that we repent of our sins. 

Four, you and every other MOUTH that carries on about casualties have absolutely not one shred of anything to back up the claims of so many casualties.  It is what the far left does so they can attack America and spew out that hate-America crap.  Spread lies and rant about who is a victim is textbook far left attack mode.

[TLC1ST]

I suggest that you get your facts straight.

One, if Richard Butler, the former UN Arms Inspector, who argued a FULL YEAR before Bush was even elected, that Hussein was the world's number one security threat, then that means nothing to you?  Also, he is an AUSTRALIAN by the way.  Add in that every last one of the top intelligence agencies, including the Mossadd, thought that Hussein had WMD's, the issue still is were did they go?

Two, President Clinton had issued orders that were carried out that had the USA bombing Iraq on almost 24/7 basis and you need to get your facts straight on it too.  It was in 1998 that Clinton signed an Executive Order authorizing the USA to do whatever it could for regime change in Iraq. 

Three, if you now do not support the action in Afghanistan, then that is typical of a great many on the far left that have actually advocated surrendering since of course, the USA is to blame for all of the world's problems and in this way we can prove to the radical's that we repent of our sins. 

Four, you and every other MOUTH that carries on about casualties have absolutely not one shred of anything to back up the claims of so many casualties.  It is what the far left does so they can attack America and spew out that hate-America crap.  Spread lies and rant about who is a victim is textbook far left attack mode.

May I say AMEN!

[grantpk]

Well, we could argue all day about what Clinton did but it doesn't change what Bush did one iota.  The fact is that Bush sold the invasion to the American public by claiming that Saddam Hussein HAD huge quantities of WMD when there was no solid evidence of their existence.  Quite contrary, as the months leading to March 2003 passed, more and more information came to light that contradicted Bush's claims, but he chose to ignore them.

I hold our President responsible for whatever action he may choose to take, and that, before sending our troops to fight wars, he has thoroughly investigated the facts and has no other options remaining.  Bush did not do that.  He only listened to the "facts" he wanted to hear -- which, we now know were not facts at all, but only estimates based on heresy and suspicions -- and presented them to us as if they had been verified.  In other words, he lied to us.

Yes, Clinton lied to us too, and I chastise him for that, but that does not excuse what Bush did by sending our troops to fight an unnecessary war.

[FoulBreeze]

As huge Multi-National US based Corporations destroy our economy from within, it sure makes some folks feel good to say, "Look! Terrorists over here! Terrorists over there! Go get 'em!" What do you think is more important to this administration? Getting Iraq to Sign Over their Oil, or finding Osama bin Laden?

[TLC1ST]

claiming that Saddam Hussein HAD huge quantities of WMD when there was no solid evidence of their existence. 

Why would we believe any differently? He had them before and He had used them before,on his own people.My question isn't why we went.My question is why we didn't go sooner?

[grantpk]

Why would we believe any differently?

One can believe whatever one wants, but before taking action to cause harm, including death, to people, one should have strong evidence.  Bush didn't have any. 

There were people, including myself, who could see that we had no evidence of Saddam's then current  WMD.  There were members of congress, the most notable one IMHO Senator Byrd of West Virginia, who saw through the hype that Bush was spreading.  (See Senator Byrd's speech on March 19 2003 - The Arrogance of Power.) Bush behaved like a leader of a lynch mob -- in effect, his attitude was "let's go get Saddam Hussein before the UN finishes their verification and declares Iraq free of WMD".

[TLC1ST]

In response to grandprk
One sees what one wants to see. I don't see any, Arrogance of Power.I see a President concerned with the Protection of our Country and our People.You included!If you don't like it then you are welcome to go over there and explain to our enemies why it is not playing nice to run airplanes through our buildings,and kill our people.I think it should have been done sooner,and finished If Bill Clinton had done what should have been done then Bush could have had more time and resources to dedicate towards his Popularity!I think Bush knew the protection of our country was much more important then a mere popularity contest.Just my opinion and you are welcome to yours however wrong it is!!!!!

[grantpk]

...then you are welcome to go over there and explain to our enemies why it is not playing nice to run airplanes through our buildings,and kill our people.

But Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911 attack.  It was al-Qaeda led by Osama BinLaden and the majority of the 911 terrorists who performed the mission were Saudi's -- not even one Iraqi in that group.

[TLC1ST]

According to the nationalities of all the people involved I find it very hard not to blame all of the Mid Eastern Nations.Egyptians,Iraqis,Afghans and I think Osama was a Saudi and Pakistan allows them to hide in that country so you see I think they were all involved.There are some Nations I didn't mention.You can add them to the list

[Parnelli]

Grantpk... Is that Robert KKK Byrd? Yea, he's a great resource for information.

[TLC1ST]

I just wondered how many remembered ,Bill Clinton Bombed Hell out of Iraq because they were planning to kill former President Bush with a roadside bomb.Bill Clinton wasn't all bad. Two thumbs up.If we have to have a Dem in the whitehouse I just wish Hillery could have gotten the nomination,then at least we would have had someone with     s. I do not believe in turning the other cheek.I believe in retaliation!