Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irishgrl
I think the GLARING MAJOR DIFFERENCE between Clinton's involvement in Iraq and Bush's is the INTENT. Clinton had no original intent, upon taking office, to wage a phony war with a bogus reason for control of another country's resource to line his cronies' pockets. Bush, on the other hand, had two very clear agendas as I have said time and again: 1) Eradicate any and all Clinton policies and (2) Get Saddam out and control the oil reserves or at least capitalize on the profit potential. No claim was too outrageous, no matter how tenuous (or absent!)....for Bush, the end justified the means, ANY MEANS. NO sacrifice was great enough, the only thing that mattered was the Oil. Personally, I think Bush was secretly delighted that Saddam wasnt cooperating, because it gave him the excuse he NEEDED to help fabricate his straw man fairy tale.
My original statement was that W LIED about the need for this war, and managed to get at least one nation to LIE along with him. THAT, IMO, is much much worse that what Clinton did in Iraq or with Monica...it is the single biggest hoax perpetrated upon the WORLD in the name of GREED, and W should be impeached for it. Fabricating a war, sacrificing our soldiers, manipulating the media, torturing innocents (the list goes on and on....)
Whether he actually will be impeached or not is not my point, the fact remains, I staunchly believe he SHOULD BE . . .
|
Actually, Bush I, Clinton, and W apparently all got the UN to lie unanimously for them for over ten years because though the actual invasion took place under W, hundreds of thousands died under the same rationale under the two before W under other killing methods
Yet, you are always so quick to excuse Clinton - I will never get it. Again, they used essentially the same info. Thus, I think surely they must both be held accountable as both killed hundreds of thousands. I see little difference in their intent.
I mean if you want to talk about self-serving intent - on August 20, 1998, Clinton sent a few missles over to the Sudan based on BS info. in a clear effort to take public perception from the Lewinsky scandal. So, while I get that is different than bombing Iraq and risking an all out war in the Middle East which Clinton also did and for the same reason W invaded Iraq, the intent on the former is rather horrid and far more self serving than W - who at least had 9/11 and the fact that SH was a known agressive terrorist who was in repeated violation of the UN's orders to account for WMD, which he did once have
Thus, I give Clinton no slack whatsoever and out him right up there with W.