Wednesday, November 28, 2007


Does Bill Clinton Ever Get Tired of hearing His Own BS ?

Bill Tells Iowans that he " Opposed Iraq From Start "

"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning....

Say WHAT ???

Ahem...Au contrair..

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff February 17, 1998

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" July 22, 2003

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

President Clinton Oval Office Address to the American People December 16, 1998

So....uhhh... were against removing Saddam from the beginning......even though the best way to " end that threat " is with a " new Iraqi govt".........Uh huh. Yup.

All the more reason for everyone opposed to the lying ass Clintonistas to get 1 or 100 of these stickers and pass them out.

Does Bill have amnesia?

That is the unfortunate aspect of pendulum politics. Some people detested Bill Clinton, so we wound up w/ W. Given his approval ratings--after all he was the one who led us into the lobster trap of Iraq--we may well wind up w/ Billary. If we do, rest assured that in 2016, we may well wind up w/ someoine who is every bit as qualified as W which is to say someone else who is not varsity material.


The revisionism is repulsive....and for the sake of what ? Does he think that in the age of the Gore invented internet that people like me and you are not able to call him out on such a freaking whopper of a lie ?

It's insulting.
Bill Clinton never advocated the U.S. removing Saddam Hussein or a ground invasion.

Mark, I guess you are not a lawyer. I'm sure Roger and Tony could explain the logic behind what I just wrote.

Advocating a new Iraqi government is a long way from advocating a U.S. ground invasion.

So just calm down dude.
Mike, he said the first thing Mark quoted in proximity to a military attack (from the air) on Iraq. He said the same sort of things about Bosnia's 'genocidal' war in the former Yugoslavia and then bombed and later put troops in. Are you really saying that he was merely bluffing in Iraq. and had Saddam done just what he did to the Bush ultimatum, he would have merely bombed but never attacked on the ground to change actually the government there? If so, Clinton was a pussy fraud of a C in C. I can live with that. How about you?
Prag....ther's more..

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this 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.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

CNN reported on June 23, 2004:

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

“I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,” Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book “My Life.”

Basically Bill is stating... "I did not have military relations with that war, that Iraq…"
Even more contradictions from a TIME Magazine piece in 2004.

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, "Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process." You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away."
So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say,

Still a long way from "The president was right to invade without a U.N. mandate."

If you want to compare Kosovo, keep in mind that Clinton was nearly fanatical in his quest to build consensus and get a U.N. mandate.

And please note that a carbon copy of your post here was on the evening news with Brian Williams.

Yeah, the liberal biased media....

Did you forget who signed the "Iraq Liberation Act"?

Not at all. Support for the opponents of Saddam and support for a U.N. tribunal (there is that pesky U.N. inclusion again) is still a long way from an invasion.

Using my downstairs neighbor example again, wishing he was dead is a lot different from me killing him.
Bottom line people.

Clinton's statement from May, 2003 "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

that means he supported the war authorized by Congress.

Well Gentlemen,

I trust your outrage over Bill Clinton is keeping you warm at night.

Whatever he said, whatever he advocated, VBill Clinton did not invade Iraq, George W. Bush did.

W/ all due respect, I think it is time for the advocates of that invasion to w/draw their craniums from their fundaments.

The invasion was a very bad idea.

In Column A (good things from the invasion) we have, to quote Roger: "Saddam dead; Udey dead; Qesay dead." Plus some may say, me included, that the invasion may have influence Muammar Qaddafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions which has resulted in Libya rejoining the community of nations.

I won't bother w/ Column B (bad things from the invasion). The list is considerably longer than Column A.

The bottom line is that we are no safer now than we were 4 and a half years ago. Probably less so given the amount of resources we have committed in Iraq.

Not to mention that the balance of political power has almost certainly swung to the Democrats in this country and although I am a Democrat, the pendulum effect will probably not be entirely beneficial.

Yes, the surge is improving the security situation w/ individual attacks in Baghdad down from around 1300 per month to about 300 something but that does not mean that Baghdad is as safe as Des Moines.

The Iraqi government remains dysfunctional. There will be no military victory w/o political success.

Our strategy of arming various factions for security purposes will ultimately result in increased sectarian violence once AQM is driven further underground.

Remember, to a degree the lessening in violence is attributable to Sadr commanding his militia to stand down. What happens if and when he reverses that order?

Anyone who read a little history could have predicted all of this.

P.S. For all of you think the invasion was a good idea, I invite you to state what you believe was the justification for the preemptive invasion of Iraq.
Tony the justification was the definitive end to a open ended WMD program. Not that Saddam wopuld have ever directly attacked the USA with said products, but the supplying of terrorists angle was / is a very rational reason. Especially for a country who has wittingly used those wepaons on neighboring countries and his own constituents.

Bad / Good news is....they weren't there. But even Saddam himself wanted you and me to believe they indeed were there. This is noted in the notes of Saddams 7 month interrogator.

I'm more outraged out the lack of real intel, than I am at the decision to move in. You tell me Tony...after 911, what is there to do....just sit there, and HOPE nothing bad is sropped in the USA that was manufactured in Iraq ? Even Hans Blix was of the mind that the stuff was there, as close as 5 weeks to the invasion....

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

Gee....did Bush write that for him...was Cheney telling him to say that ?

Here is our buddy Harry Reid...who is actually correct in what he says here....

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145

Your first statement in this thread suggests, "Bill Clinton never advocated the U.S. removing Saddam Hussein”. In acknowledging the "Iraq Liberation Act", do you concede the point that president Clinton in fact was willing to commit U.S. recourses to Saddam Hussein’s removal?

In addition, did you forget about UN resolution 1441? (There is that pesky U.N. inclusion again)
A few more good reasons for invading Iraq and being done with the Saddam regime:

Abu Nidal
Abu Abbas
Unending UN sanctions on Iraq
Unending no-fly zone enforcement over Iraq

As for the two Abus, google them and ask yourself what they were doing under Saddamn's protection. further comment from Tony or PT?

This thread must have grown stale. Yeah, that's it.

Yeah,,,kind of frustrating, but even thought they lack the humility, it is nice to know that they are probably at least thinking about it:)
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?