Clinton on Bush uranium line: 'Everybody makes mistakes'

Blix was keeping up the inspections because that was the job he was assigned by the UN. I thought I saw recently that he stated that he was fast approaching a recommendation of regime change, but we kicked them out too soon.

I agree that Blix should have no say in US defense policy just as the US should have no say in UN mandated weapons inspections.

 

Different time; different space-- specifically post 9/11 when "preemption" entered the vocabulary.

 

my thoughts exactly...it's speculation, at best, to guess what clinton would have done with this in a post-9/11 world. we can all make guesses, but after all...they're just guesses.

 

You mean our vocabulary, right? Cause it's the oldest premise in the books for expanding empires...always has been. Virtually every superpower in history that wanted to exert their interest in a lesser nation has cited pre-emption as the basis. Of course we're different, because those nations' leaders weren't honest anf forthright with their people, and those nations didn't have the access to intel in order to eval potantial threats like we can.

 

Yep Macbeth, that is what we are doing...expanding our empire....just like when we kept Japan after WW2, or when we kept France after liberating it, or when we kept Germany after taking them out, or perhaps you meant when we kept South Korea....or maybe when we kept Guatamala.....or......

Your historical arguments have no merit concerning the USA, we have not had a history of keeping any other country, especially in the last 100 + years.

We don't want Iraq...we want stability with democracy spreading throughout the world....I guess you don't want that though, huh?

DD

 

A) Haven't you read...everything changed since 9-11. And Japan...Germany...They attacked us, we defended ourselves. Invading another nation currently attacking no one seems just a tad different to me, and might just indicate slightly different motives than defending ourselves against two nations that declared war on us.

And we never had an option, not that we would have, of 'keeping France' in that there were all kinds of forces there other than ours.

I love this line, though: "Your historical arguments have no merit concerning the USA, we have not had a history of keeping any other country, especially in the last 100 + years." Saw the whole Native thing coming mid sentance did you?

Oh, and as said many, many times, there have been countless ways nations expand theor empires, including taking them over to set up 'friendly' governemnts and leaving...see Athens, see Monguls, see many of Rome's intital conquests during the Republic, see many, many others. Take over...set up government with similar political system to own, and who has favorable realtionship, diplomatically and economically with own, often but not always include in this establishment of business interests run by own people, leave...sound familar? Always...always called Imperialism, byt history, by those at the time, by everyone except occassionally those within the Imperial nation themselves. We don't have to be practicing one brand to be doing just that...

 

Probably the worse thing that Clinton ever did was to continue the needless disgraceful sanctions that killed 100's of thousands of Iraqi children and innocents because he didn't have the balls to face the typi al bs Republican attacks that Democrats are wimps and unpatriotic.. He continued the disgraceful policies of Bush I with the sanctions against Iraq.

Interestingly, even Dick Cheney while at Halliburton was trying to get the murderous sanctions lifted.

Prior to 911 which gave the neocons the cover to seize Iraq and occupy it, for oil or Israel or whatever their reasons were, Bush II's policy toward Iraq was very similar to Clinton's.

Hiliary has consistently supported the war probably for domestic NY political reasons. Is there any reason to expect Clinton not to back her up on this?

So now the conservatives on the board all of a sudden like Clinton. hehehehe

 

I'll show up in this thread. As I've said in the numerous Clinton-bashing threads, (yes, all the wha-whaaa-waaaaa-why-won't-he-go-away threads and the he-was-such-a-horrible-president-and-scumbag threads), he's not president.

That being said, it took some real class to stand up for Bush. I agree that it's difficult to get everything right. I've never said that all weapons were accounted for. Was that the supposed issue? That liberals claimed all the weapons were accounted for? Gee, I missed that. An unknown quantity is not a good reason for war. Responding to a clear and immediate threat is a good reason, especially with excellent intelligence. Oh, whoops. Sorry, that's a "weak argument" for some reason, even though most of the globe would agree that Iraq posed no immediate threat to us, in agreement with our own Central Intelligence Agency. Agreeing with the CIA is "weak," while getting your war on for lack of anything better to do shows you have "sack."

I'll still say pre-emptive war put us in history's ****tiest, most loathsome company. I don't care who thinks it was a good idea, Clinton -- never my "top dog," sorry. Maybe Wellstone, not that DD's heard of him -- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pleberman, whomever. I don't care.

Now, let's see what Dadakota is really interested in.

a) respectful dialogue? Well, not that I've seen.
b) hearing perspectives that differ from his own? Absolutely not.
c) intelligent analysis of facts? Little evidence.
or...
d) tossing out unproductive and disrespectful bile, void of content? (you decide. see the post quoted above).

Very impressive. That technique is very persuasive.

 

B-Bob,

A little sensitive aren't you? Just so you know...I like to prod the logs in the fire now and again to get a reaction, makes my day more interesting.

Think Phil Hendrie and you will understand.

DD

 

I just liked this quote.

 

DD you seem a little desperate to get so worked up about a telephone call on the Larry King live show. Is that Atkins diet taking the fat out of your head or are you just losing some of your gut(s).

 

Well, Rush spoiled it for me because he said it is Clinton CYA for the historical record.

 

Bush Jr. didn't invade with anywhere near the kind of support his father had for Gulf 1. There may have been as many countries issuing proclomations giving their support. But there were not near as many in combat, paying for the operation or supporting it, in any real kind of way. In Gulf War 1. there were members of the coalition in more than just name. This time around you could count the real members on one hand.

As far as Bush doing what he thinks is right, I had at one point gained a lot of confidence in him after Afghanistan. He did wait rather than just go into Afghanistan. At the memorial he had a Muslim Imam speak first, and made several statements that it wasn't against all Islam that we were fighting. I was truly impressed.

And this time I'm sure Bush felt he did what was right. I believe that he genuinely believed that it was a good thing. That's not an excuse for doing anything wrong, however.

9/11 is bad, and we should pursue terrorism fast and furious. Iraq, however, had nothing to do with 9/11. The intel in the hands of the whitehouse said that Saddam wouldn't give WMD to terrorists unless possibly if he was attacked. So in other words Intel said that the most dangerous action regarding terrorism was invading.

 

I don't know if anybody told you this yet, but Saddam supported terrorism by paying large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers. If you truely believe that we should, "pursue terrorism fast and furious", then you should support the war on Iraq.

 

Uh, I know you said it was rhetorical and all, but...

This is a silly comparison. How much terrorism has Fidel sponsored? How much threat potential does he pose? Do you really think its comparable to Saddam or Iran or North Korea?

As Fidel is a tyrant I would indeed favor a proactive foreign policy vis-a-vis Cuba to remove him from office. Much like I feel we should do in Iran, we should pursue constructive engagement with Cuba. Reverse the embargo totally. The situation in Cuba, as in Iran, is much more likely to be affected by the flow of trade, investment, and good relations than by military force (although it could be done with military force if constructive engagement fails). In Iraq, as in Bosnia/Serbia, the potential for positive change through constructive engagement was low to nill.

 

You just don't have any conception of 'what we are about.' Different administrations have followed different policies to stop threats, potential and otherwise. Both through multilateral and unilateral actions, usually at the same time. No Administration has EVER said we would ONLY act under UN auspices. NO ADMINISTRATION. Now we find our comfort and safety threatened and don't think we should continue with the same policies that fueled that very threat to our comfort and safety.

They can trust us if they don't screw with us. Seems pretty simple. Does France trust us? Probably not. Do they think we are a threat to invade them? Hardly. Are we a threat to their potential influence and power? Certainly. Does that piss them off? Certainly. Do I care? Not really.

Actually the only thing the NIE report preportedly shows is that there was not an immediacy to the threat. Even you, MacBeth, have maintained that Saddam would have keep going after nukes until he got them. Nothing proven wrong with that logic.

Hardly. Pursuing unilateral action is neither criminal nor 'treaty breaking.' Neither removing potential threats or immediate threats, nor doing so unilateral is illegitimate.

You are a strange fellow. In the UN, each country is supposed to count the same, right? And yet you trivialize many of the coalition because they are smaller than France? What about Italy or Spain? Are they not the requisite size to meet your 'bigg'uns' criteria? Its simply not semantics, as I've explained before. Bush Sr. bought many many members of the coalition in PGW1, Bush Jr bought some in PGW2. Bush Jr also had many countries join that are of a large size and influence (Italy/Spain/UK/Japan) since that is important to you. You should also not that both the PRC and Russia were NOT big supporters of PGW1, as much of the Middle Eastern populace was not.

Not a pity. We got a wake up call and now the rest of the world is getting theirs. Either move to squelch these threats if they are in your 'sphere of influence' or we will do so.

And I love your continual tapdance of 'our history.' One minute its 'we committed genocide, we had slavery longer than any other, we're criminal invaders;' and the next its 'the nation that stood for real freedom and equality.' It sure is a nice advantage to argue both sides when its convenient.

 

MacBeth -- I don't know if you intend to do this or not...but from my perception, I'd say this statement is pretty accurate.

 

A few things about imperialism -

In the past, imperialism has been about the conquest of lands and people. In the last half century, it has shifted to the conquest of economic markets. This is a very widely held thesis in geopolitics among academics and government-types alike.

DaDakota - you mentioned the liberation of Japan, France, Germany, S. Korea and Guatemala and then the subsequent non-occupation of these places. I don't think that proves that we aren't imperialists there, because the very impetus for imperialism has changed. Just like when Teddy brought the battleships to Japan to open them up for trade with us, each of these reconstruction efforts has manifested itself in a desire to take advantage of some market.

Recent military operations and [supposedly altruistic] foreign aid have been extensions of this. Why do we give so much aid to Djibouti? The answer is to protect and extert control over markets.

This is the new imperialism.

I'm not saying that imperialism by domination of foreign markets is bad, I just think it's a shame that we have to bring guns in to do it. And I think it's a bit misleading to say we're not in Iraq for imperialist reasons just because we don't want to put a 51st star on our flag.

oh, and thanks for the welcome DaDakota. I've been lurking here for a few years, but I haven't really posted much.

 

a much kinder imperialism to be sure then. if you can call it that. imperialism carries with it baggage that i don't think are applicable when you talk about japan after WWII. i'm thinking helping to rebuild a country that attacked you first...becoming their trade partner...and assisting them in gearing up to, at one point, being your key economic competitor globally is a little less encroaching than what we saw in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

You forgot to mention dropping atomic weapons on three of their cities.