Hogwash - you know that is a fact but refuse ever to slam Clinton. Again, I guess it is okay for Clinton to kill hundeds of thousands in the name of essentially the same intelligence.
I am glad you know W's intent - did he call you personally and tell it to you.
I am also glad W personally has all that rev. from Iraqi oil in his personal bank account
But, I suppose it could be argued that W's intent is demonstrated because Halliburton, which people incorrectly think is the same as W, made a pretty penny off of Iraq with its no bid contract. However, Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts and other work from the US govt. for years and Clinton also gave them to Halliburton for the Balkans. Thus, Clinton must have had the same intent as W if lining Halliburton's pockets demonstrated intent.
Also and interestingly, I believe Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work. Take that for what it is worth.
Yep - W knew that four planes were going to be hijacked the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 and he also knew exactly where they were to be flown and all the relevant details
The facts demonstrate all the Administration knew was that OBL wanted to attack the mainland US, which BTW, OBL had done before. The specifics were not known. If they were, let's see the docs.?
Note - I think W must be held accountable for 9/11 as the buck stops with him and he was too busy pissing in the wind in other areas, etc. But, to say W knew the exact details of 9/11 and purposefully did nothing to stop it, which is what you implied, is speculation that is unsupported by any facts I have ever seen.
So, its okay to kill people in another country and not to involve US soldiers to any significant degree?
As for impeachment - I never said I thought W should not be impeached - in fact, I have called for it more than once. I simply said in the context of this thread that the Downing Street Memo. will not achieve that purpose because the D's are too much in bed with the R's here, which then necessitates the discussion of Clinton's killing of innocent Iraqi's in the name of WMD - they go hand in hand.
I am not saying W was justified because Clinton did it as well - so please stop putting those words in my mouth.
Again, I think W is a horrible person for the Iraq situation. But, I think that people want to put all of the blame on W and that is just not right. Iraq did not happen overnight and the current war is happening because of a series of events spanning over ten years
But, you will never see it that way because to these eyes, you are blindly partisan and never fault anyone but W for anything. I mean bless your heart, you just cannot ever admit Clinton was just as much of a murderer as W - oh well - so be it.
As for buying into the Iraq War and the reasoning behind it, I have always maintained that W was placed in a precarious situation after 9/11. SH was, once again and pay attention this time, a known terrorist who the entire world via the UN agreed had WMD. SH had agressively invaded an American ally and was being punished by the UN for doing so- yet SH was not living up to his end of the bargain he made. After 9/11, Clinton, W, Kerry, and just about everyone involved said something needed to be done about SH because we did not want to get attacked again and SH, a known terrorist, had had some contact with Al-Q, which has been proven though the contacts did not demonstrate a working relationship. So, W went to the UN and once again the UN unanimously found SH in violation of his agreement to prove he had disarmed. Once again, SH balked at that - but then after a brief bit of stalling about where the inspectors could and could not go, SH allowed the inspectors back into Iraq. I, like Clinton, think W should have allowed the inpectors to conclude their work, which was working by all accounts. However, W did not do and that is where I and Clinton fault W. Again, Clinton does not fault W for holding Iraq to task on its obligation to the UN or really even wanting to oust SH through military action - Clinton just thinks W should have waited for the inspections to conclude. So, that is why I think any discussion of Iraq must span a decade or so and must include all of the US' actions leading up to it.
But, I think you fault W on everything having to do with Iraq prior to W's stopping the last set of inspections. If you are going to fault W for that prior time period, then you have to fault the US and its policy prior to then as well because the US (under Bush I and Clinton) killed hundreds of thousands of people under that policy all in the name of trying to make SH live up to his agreement to prove he had destroyed his WMD. Again, the UN found SH in breach of that obligation numerous times prior to W and the US acted militarily on those violations numerous times and also essentially starved the children of Iraq with the corrupt Oil for Food program, which stemmed from the WMD intelligence.
So, in the end, I think it is factually incorrect to say or imply that W on his own got the bright idea to make SH live up to his UN obligations or face the consequences and W did so all in the name of personal greed and power. But, if that was the sole motivation, then to be fair, one must conlcude that the US had been doing that for a decade or so prior to then.
I submit you know nothing at all
On edit:
I found this article. I am not a fan of the author, but I thought it was a good example of the same justification used by Clinton and W to kill Iraqis:
Remember Clinton's war in Iraq?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
The opponents of the Bush administration's possible military action against Iraq make the following arguments: "He's simply trying to finish the job his father started"; "No blood for oil"; "Iraq poses no imminent threat"; "Wars kill innocent women and children"; "Allow the United Nations inspections to proceed"; "Containment works"; "Avoid unilateralism, and proceed only with the United Nations' approval"; and the all-encompassing "No smoking gun exists demonstrating that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction."
But Bill Clinton, four years ago, took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments now advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening.
Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."
Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. ... Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. ... Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."
Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves."
Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military."
What a difference an administration makes.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=31143
_____________________________________
I cite this article solely to demonstrate that in many ways W acted as Clinton did - thus consistent with the US' stance toward Iraq and the US' consistent belief that SH had WMD and the motivation to kill to make SH prove he did not.
In no way should my posting of this article be confused with me saying I support W's decision to go to war or that Clinton did it too so its okay. I am not saying that.