Feeling smug about no WMDs? Clinton states the case:

Pretty much all of Clinton's senior mgmt considered Iraq enough of a threat to go to war. Although they didn't nec agree with Bush's handling of the UN or the timing of the war.

 

Classic! The nine smuggers are really, really setting themselves for the ultimate in EXPOSURES. More and more data is pointing to the most humiliating of EXPOSURES coming their way. I will repeat that they are guilty of PREMATURE EVALUATION once again.

 

Stick to the thread topic.....damn.

Left vs. Right

Democrat vs. Republican

Good vs. Evil

Lightmeat vs. Darkmeat

Darth vs. Luke

What a waste of time. And I want my 30 second back that I used up to post this.

 

Feeling smug?! I don't feel smug that hundreds of our American brothers and sisters are dying in that desert for no justifiable purpose. I hope weapons of mass destruction *are* found; then maybe Bush could offer widows a reason why their spouse is dead.

Smug? More like really, really pissed off.

 

Right on.

For me, it's more of a case that this war was a big sales job. As I have read in many different publications, public opinion is manufactured, and all war is based on deception.

The main documents that I have read basically point to Iraq as merely the first country on this administration's hit list. Iraq didn't prove to be so cut and dry, so we're letting Israel hit the next target (Syria) and then seeing how that shakes out.

Bush is defining his presidency by his war on terrorism. This involves more than a little sleight of hand. The "liberal media" seldom mentions the close business ties that the Bushes have enjoyed with the bin Laden family. Certainly Bush the Lesser excised all those pages that would damn the Saudis with whom his family has done bidness over the years (including the bin Ladens).

So weapons of mass deception are still floating around. So we turn to the human rights nightmare of Iraq....some more hypocrisy on our part, as our buddies the Saudis have a place in Riyadh known as chop-chop square, where public beheadings occur, and needless to say the victims are not exactly given due process.

Then we have Pakistan. Not a bastion of U.S. friendlies there. And yet our ostensible allies.

And so it all comes down to killing another few thousand civilians in some far-flung hell-hole as yet more payback for 9/11. 9/11, 9/11, always that excuse to do whatever we want with complete impunity. Meanwhile, as we're paying out the nose for Iraq, things back home don't look too good none, you know what I mean, Vern?

As for Clinton speaking up on behalf of Bush, if Saddam was such a threat to us, why didn't he start a war like Wolfowitz implored back in the early nineties? Wolfowitz, one of the founders of Project for the New American Century, which provided the hit list that the current administration is using (Iaq, Syria, Iran, North Korea...the latter two now racing to become nuclear states). All this plays into the administration's hands. You have to justify a gigantic military budget. You need enemies to do that.

Some of the things I have read show that Bush and Clinton often drew water from the same poisoned well. I don't know what Clinton gains by his speechifying. He did advocate going after Osama bin Laden but didn't want to saddle the incoming administration with a war; so Sandy Berger briefed Condoleeza Rice on their plans to go after Al Qaeda, which Honest Condi doesn't recall now, so sorry. I'll give Clinton that much credit. If he would say that war might have been justified within a multilateral context (and even that a big maybe), I'd have more respect for him on this.

No matter what happens next year in the elections, Bush will have won to some degree because the entire national dialogue has shifted far to the right, even though he has done much more to foment rather than curtail terrorism. Too bad Bush didn't heed warnings from Putin, Mobarak, and the Mossad in the summer of 2001 about the impending major attacks on U.S. soil.

 

Let's see, this took, what.....thirty seconds to get in another ugly, name-calling bunfight? In any case, our folks over there are not dying for nothing as in our half-hearted "peacekeeping" boondoogles in the Balkans, where the moment we leave, the fighting will start momentarily, Dayton Accords or no Dayton Accords. We are doing great things in Iraq and the people who have died over there (there haven't been as many as I expected) have died in the pursuit of a great purpose: stablizing Iraq and turning it into a productive country. The rub is we need to quit listening the naysayers in the media and on the Left crying "quagmire" every ten seconds and finish the ****ing job.

 

Here's what George thinks they are dying for...

President Bush used a Columbus Day speech Monday to pay tribute to soldiers who have died in that war and others.

"That's what's happening today: People are willing to sacrifice for the country they love," Bush said at the White House. "They remember the lessons of September 11th, 2001, and so do I."

So we have yet another link between Iraq and 9/11 even though the President and Condi and Powell have said there is no direct link and we have yet another transparent attempt by this AWOL loser to wrap himself in the flag and bodies of dead soldiers. Despicable.

But I am glad he recognized the price our soldiers are paying. He was so moved by this great sacrifice he went out and played golf.

 

What was he supposed to do? Sit in sackcloth and ashes? Eat glass? Lay on a bed of nails? Cut himself with sharp stones?

Are you saying that people who played golf today can't be moved by the great sacrifice of our service men and women? How about people who watched Monday Night Football? How about people who posted on a BBS?

 

how do you celebrate memorial day, rimrocker?? do you inflict pain on yourself...or sit morbidly all day thinking of those who died gruesome deaths to secure your freedom??

 

One thing that's funny about this post and others like it, is that conservatives assume liberals love Clinton as much as Conservatives hate him. The tone here is that, 'You want to Criticize Bush for Iraq? Well guess what...? Clinton said Iraq was dangerous too.'

My response and I know several others who oppose the war, is that it doesn't matter who says the wrong thing, be it Clinton, Bush, Carter or Reagan. If it was wrong, or at least handled wrong then that's the main thing. By somehow attaching Clinton's name to this doesn't change the mind of anybody I know that was opposed to the war. But conservatives seem so sure that we all just worship Clinton and that we all feel stupid for going against what our beloved leader has agreed with.

Conservatives have a very strange fascination with Clinton.

 

It's sexual jealousy. Conservatives wish they could get laid like Clinton, but since all conservatives look like Rush Limbaugh, the best they can hope for is the semi-annual reacharound from the housemaid while on a hillbilly heroin high!

 

I think Clinton's actions during his presidency would suggest that Saddam/Iraq needed international attention. If Clinton really saw a "case for war" (i.e. imminent threat to the US), he would have acted.

BTW, the rush-to-war started with the "Axis of Evil" SOTU speech in January 2002.

What you are saying is that just as long as a well though argument to attack another country exists, absense any hard evidence, it is OK (versus the fact that the rest of the world including pre-GWB US considers preventive/preemptive wars an international war crime).

Something else you need to consider is that Saddam had the means and the opportunity to support bin Laden/al Qaeda but did not. You may say that eventually we may find some evidence supporting the Saddam / bin Laden link, but as of right now 6+ months after we invaded Iraq we do not have that proof. Don't you think that the proof should have been irrefutable prior to the invasion? Obviously, Bush does not.

 

Again, do you guys have *any* unbiased sources for your articles?

 

Man, they really do. I couldn't care less what Clinton said on Iraq. He was for the first Gulf War too. One of the many reasons I never voted for him. He is miles better than the current guy though.