Feeling smug about no WMDs? Clinton states the case:

Is there such a thing? From either side?

 

the mere title of this thread lends itself to the thought that this war is part of political strategy

 

Clinton supported economic sanctions, no-fly zones, spying on Saddam using the UN weapons team as cover, fomenting unsuccesful coups, and Operation Desert Fox. Nothing, indeed.

 

On top of that, when the Bush II Administration took office, they were briefed in detail by Clinton's anti-terrorism team about Al Qaeda and what they were up to. Classified documents and all information was passed along to the Bush II Administration.

What did the Bush II Adminstration do about Al Qaeda?

Nothing....until after 9/11.

 

"You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to, let's call the whole thing off!"

 

This thread is a logical trainwreck. I don' t even know where to begin.

 

Amen to that: conservatives can't seem to get enough of Clinton's sexual life.

 

Yeah, this thread is pretty dang funny. It's all over the place.

 

Basso, this post is irrefutable evidence that you have been taking Viagra and Rogaine at the same time!

 

It is necessary to deliniate between a direct link to 9/11 and Saddam if the result is an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. When the risk is troops, world standing, civilian deaths, and a war, then it is most important to make that distinction.

As for what Clinton said and believed, none of it justified a war under the conditions that we went to war. And just to point something out, Clinton didn't feel it justified an invasion either or he would have invaded.

As for only 20 out of the 130 weapons dumps being searched their reason to be skeptical. Do you think they started going over the least likely sights to contain WMD, or the most likely? I'm sure they started at the most likely, and worked their way down the list.

Again you bring up in the wake of 9/11. The two aren't related. It's a red herring to keep throwing that out there. In the wake of 9/11 it's not better to take the offense when it means you are uncessarily risking lives. War should be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction because we were attacked by an unrelated terrorist group.

 

Since you asked...

I rolled out of a sleeping bag in 37 degree weather at 6:20 am on a ridgetop in Sequoia National Park. Wolfed down a cold breakfast and then spent the morning bushwhacking around a fire looking at possible contingency lines, escape routes, and safety zones. Got picked up by helicopter around 1:00 and dropped off on another fire in the Inyo National Forest. Choked down a cold lunch with warm water and did the same kind of recon on that fire. Got picked up around 7 pm and was flown into town where I got to a hotel room, took a hot shower, ordered pizza, talked to my wife and kids for the first time in 2+ days, and plugged my laptop in to catch up on all the news here at CC. So yes, in a way I inflicted pain on myself as it was a physically challenging day and yes, I did consider gruesome death as part of my job is thinking about worst-case scenarios and identifying options for firefighters so they don't experience a grim death. What ticked me off about Bush's quote is that he has never considered other options and he has certainly never sacrificed one whit in the service of his country or others. On this topic at least, he's a hypocrite and a fraud. Those who fall for this schtick are, in my view, the equivalents of the front-row suckers carnies fleece regularly. And let me state that a while back I posted a message where I criticized specific actions of every Democratic President since FDR and challenged those of you from the other end of the spectrum to offer just one heartfelt criticism of this administration and what do you know, not one person rose to the challenge.

Good night. See you in a couple of days.

 

Keep up the good work and stay safe, rimrocker. Wish you coulda seen 60 Minutes tonight. It was really something.