Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuzeQuze
Yes, this is hardly "advocating" war, it is perhaps condoning an air strike. No this isn't innocent behavior, but it is not lying to the UN to begin a full on attack/take over operation (with an underlying motive for oil and money). Do you see the difference?
|
But - Clinton used essentially the same reasoning at the UN, which Dissention asserts was a lie when W did it - thus my point.
And - yes, that is advocating war. Kerry and the others are saying if you cannot resolve this any other way, you need to use force, which Clinton did and when Clinton did, everyone held their breath and prayed SH would not launch an attack on Isreal whose hand was not staid as in the first Gulf War. If that had happened - if Isreal had struck back, it would have been an all out war. That is why I say it was not just sending a few missles over there. In the end, Kerry has never disagreed with Clinton's use of force and his taking of that calculated risk of war; Kerry has never said otherwise
But, I know I know the R's can never do anything right and when the D's kill in the name of WMD - it is somehow okay. I'll never get it.
Finally, I liked Clinton and wish he was still in the WH to this day and I voted for Kerry even though I think he was no ideal of mine; he was, however, far closer to an ideal than W. But, I do not sugar coat them and I certainly never tow any party line out of blind allegiance (not that you were doing that
). I call it like I see it and the facts state it, an attribute few possess in this world's political arena - sad - but very true.
BTW - ewveryone asserts we went to control Iraqi oil. We do not do so now and have not ever done so. Yes, Halliburton made money, but surely there were easier way to siphon money to them if that has been the intent all the time. So, I just do not buy that argument or at least totally.