Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by Sir Evil
Please pull a quote from your linked article that has Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction"
be careful
Bush admin lied about iraq having an active nuclear program and collaborative ties to al qaeda. Those were blatant lies, that was not supported by Democrats at large.
I think clinton fear-mongered about Saddams WMD capacity in the 1990s. Because, US policy was about keeping Saddam in his box. It wasn't really, strictly speaking, just about "disarming" him. Who really gave a shit if he had some mustard gas? That's not a stategic threat to us.
But there was never an attempt to lie us into a bloody war and occupation until the chimp ambled onto the scene.
Please pull a quote from your linked article that has Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction"
be careful
"In a rich society, no one should be allowed to suffer from deprivation such as homelessness, starvation and illness. This ideal is essential, not simply as a matter of human good, but as the price we pay for a measure of domestic tranquility."
John Kenneth Galbraith
You read the article, no? Why do you want me to pull a quote, so you can spin it to the way you see it? If you wanna see it for the only administration, the only politcal figures to make these claims then more power to ya. The iraq issue was hashed over and over before this administration came to be. They acted on it and therefore must be the only ones to ever of had this view of iraq.
You see it for whatever you would like, I'll choose to see it for what I like. Facts will remain though that many politicans made claims about iraq, some did at one time or another see it for the same purpose. You wanna make it fit your way of seeing it I'm cool with that......
you cannot pull a quote from your article that has Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had any WMD's. I made that assertion earlier and you replied:
"Whatever.....I guess the article I linked was just another made up story, I guess you have it all right, the rest is all false facades simply there for pure entertainment.."
I assumed by that quote that you were suggesting that the article in some way contradicted my statement. We both know that the linked article does NOT contradict my statement which begs the question, why did you write the above quote in the first place????
"In a rich society, no one should be allowed to suffer from deprivation such as homelessness, starvation and illness. This ideal is essential, not simply as a matter of human good, but as the price we pay for a measure of domestic tranquility."
John Kenneth Galbraith
Ok, good for you! see it whichever way you would like, if you feel that billy never made his own asessment about iraqs weapon programs then see it for whatever it is that you to, I'm hardly telling you how to view something, just suggesting that many seem to view it another way.
Junior Member
JPP Contributor
yes, he did back in 1998, and he bombed a stupid pill factory because of it...SO WHAT? So what?
What's your POINT? Did he take us to f-ing war over it? Did he come before America and tell us he had not made up his mind yet about going to FULL FLEDGE F-ING WAR WITH 150,000 + American men and women WHICH LEAD TO KILLING 50,000-100m000 people of whom MOST were innocent and had done NOTHING TO US, while he had PLANS all along to send our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers and sisters in there?
I am telling ya Evil (Dick, to make you happy,), you can post one quote after another of the clintons, kerry, reid or whoever the heck you want to post and I will POINT OUT TO YOU where these quotes ARE MOST CERTAINLY different than the statements of the President, the Vice president, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice etc.....
Very different meanings and most certainly very different circumstances.
And yes, alot of congress was duped or they wanted to be duped and believe in their president.
I did not fall for it, but I know many friends that did, because they had not read as much as I had on the subject of saddam etc, where they just BELIEVED what they were told....fell for the damn war drums because of fear, and cowardice, imo....cowardly because they never took it upon themselves to question their government in times of crisis because their government will uses a crisis to the hilt to advance ideological beliefs.
that's what happened....and DECIET was the means used to do it.
care
Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had any WMD's
The Clinton-era National Intelligence Estimate (1999) was much more cautious about asserting whether Iraq had WMD. In fact, it went to pains to outline the lack of direct evidence suggesting it.
For some strange reason that all changed in October 2002, when the NIE was updated with much more ominous assertions, and clearcut statements of fact - with the caveats and qualifiers removed:
previous NIE had indicated - and this was still the general consensus of US intelligence agencies in early 2002 - that:
-The 1991 Gulf War, UN inspections, and subsequent military actions had destroyed most of Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and long-range missile capacity.
-There was no direct evidence that any chemical or biological weapons remained in Iraq, but agencies judged it likely that some stocks could still remain and that production could be renewed.
-As Iraq rebuilt its facilities, some of the equipment purchased for civilian use could also be used to manufacture chemical or biological weapons.
-Without an inspection regime, it was very difficult to determine the status of these programmes.
A marked shift, however, occurred with the October 2002 NIE. The findings became far more dramatic, specific and certain. This NIE judged that Iraq had 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons "much of it added in the last year," that "all key aspects . . . of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) programme are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd78/78jc.htm
The point is that the quotes I point out are there, the ones you will point out are there, so if you wanna selectively take it down memory lane and say how the cercumstances were different, we did'nt go to war then. we had only bombed a pill factory, the fact will remain that many figures on both sides of the lines that all draw so very well here, saw iraq as an issue.
I am telling ya Evil (Dick, to make you happy,
Very different meanings and most certainly very different circumstances.
care
You wanna say that iraq was no threat to us at all when it conveniently fits your argument, I say clinton stumpled upon this path himself, and for that I am autmoatically a neocon or whatever it is you wish to classify the opposing views as. Call it whatever you wanna call it to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, and I am cool with that, I just see it differently, call me what you want for seeing it differently and I shall certainly be upset........NOT!.......
LOL, ya like that one too when I am not in agreeance with what you say?
I am telling ya Evil (Dick, to make you happy,
care
You can certainly refer to me a dick, I do like that but something tells me before long you too will be claiming I am following your every post looking to stick my nose up your coochie.....
Hey .. Im acused of being a far right winger .. so how friggin partisan can one get ....Maybe a wee bit!
""Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." George Washington "
Hey .. Im acused of being a far right winger .. so how friggin partisan can one get ....
Who dare had the nerve to accuse you of that one?.............
Junior Member
JPP Contributor
The point is that the quotes I point out are there, the ones you will point out are there, so if you wanna selectively take it down memory lane and say how the cercumstances were different, we did'nt go to war then. we had only bombed a pill factory, the fact will remain that many figures on both sides of the lines that all draw so very well here, saw iraq as an issue.
You wanna say that iraq was no threat to us at all when it conveniently fits your argument, I say clinton stumpled upon this path himself, and for that I am autmoatically a neocon or whatever it is you wish to classify the opposing views as. Call it whatever you wanna call it to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, and I am cool with that, I just see it differently, call me what you want for seeing it differently and I shall certainly be upset........NOT!.......
no, YOU ARE PLAYING POLITICS and the rest of the ''right wingers'' are too, with this issue... YOU just did it....you took the republican jargon, after the fact jargon i might add, and jargon that only came out AFTER people started speaking out against the war, and have TRIED REPEATEDLY to twist the words that were said 6 FRICKING YEARS EARLIER, and circumstances that were CERTAINLY DIFFERENT than the times we were in in 2003 when Bush invaded and PRETEND THAT THEY WERE THE SAME THING.
When they were not the same thing Evil, not even close...yes Saddam is evil, yes we don't want him to build up wmd's and yes we would like regime change, but for your side to say that INTELLIGENCE THAT CLINTON USED FROM 5 F-ING YEARS EARLIER WAS the same intelligence bush used and why knock fricking bush for it, for the "same thing" is an out right LIE, AND SPIN and does a diservice to our country promoting it...
And if our fricking intelligence can not get any further info in FIVE F-ING YEARS OTHER THAN what clinton had THEN we should NOT under any circumstances act on it....not five year old intelligence...so using what clinton said and had info on right after we lost our inspectors as the reason bush was ok to go to war is ludacrice, and MOOT AS far as I am concerned, and it should be for you too, if you used some LOGIC...
Clinton had more recent info than Bush, and HE DID NOT SEND OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN to a ful fledge war to die for it, or he did not believe in preemptive WAR, war, war...
Junior Member
JPP Contributor
anyway evil, gotta step away for a bit, but i will be bck
Oh yes pappy bush and Regan were messing around in Iraq.....
and before that too...
But no one else was dumb enough to occupy and force a new govt on them.
Wait a minute now, I didn't claim they used the same intelligence, I questioned if it were better! there is a difference. I stated that bill also said these things about saddam, I didn't state that I am using that in defendind bush, I stated that it seems a case of selective memory for those who like to bash bush on the issue. bottom line is that anway you choose to look at the issue for some it will always fit their own argument, others may see it differently. So if I choose to read into this isuue differently, and that makes me a warmonging, neocon, rightwing nutjob, and a diservice to this country, hey I'm cool with that......
Posting Rules
Bookmarks