isn't it chilling to think if Gore won in 2000

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again insults. Please explain to me why Clinton failed to stop it and the many other attacks, save the lucky border stop which prevented the Y2K attack.

Also, the Bush Admin. has arrested people in the Cole bombing. So, I am unsure what you are talking about. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5382646

In the last month...what timing!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Apparently, I had hope too soon. Well, at least you are consistent

I know this may come as a surprise to you and it may be hard for you as a far far ledt person to comprehend, but some of the things the Bush Admin. has said are true and admitting that is not the end of the world.

Again, please tell me why trying to stop SH from giving WMD, which the world agreed he had, to terrorists was a bad idea?

I am not excusing W's rush to war. I am talking only about that exact premise, which the world supports was true - see UN Res. 1441.

You're getting sidetracked.

Again, you do not address my response that the stories of Clinton being offered Osama were bunk. They were and among many tlaking points employed by O'Lielly, actually.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

The perps were tried and convicted during Clinton's second term.

I know, but they were just the soldiers following orders from OBL - we could have tried to extradite OBL based on that We did not. I suggest that was a mistake

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

In the last month...what timing!

Exactly.

Tell it to John Dean (lord, I hope I have his name right this time, Goldie! ).

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know, but they were just the soldiers following orders from OBL - we could have tried to extradite OBL based on that We did not. I suggest that was a mistake

Prove it. And what would we have charged him with in order to extradite him?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Make no mistake, I think Clinton did many good things to stop terrorism. I just think he failed not only to get OBL,

When did he have an opportunity to get Bin Laden? The man tried. In one of your earlier posts, you say that Bin Laden would never have been handed over anyway because of his close relationship with the House of Saud and the ensuing uproar that would've followed. So what are you proposing that he could have done?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

When did he have an opportunity to get Bin Laden? The man tried. In one of your earlier posts, you say that Bin Laden would never have been handed over anyway because of his close relationship with the House of Saud and the ensuing uproar that would've followed. So what are you proposing that he could have done?

Shake the trees?

I couldn't resist.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Exactly.

Tell it to John Dean (lord, I hope I have his name right this time, Goldie! ).

O'Neill? Dean was Nixon's.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

O'Neill? Dean was Nixon's.

F*ck.

I always get those two mixed up, dammit!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Shake the trees?

I couldn't resist.

Smoke 'em out of their hole.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Do you know what Clinton's policy was, Jason? Seriously, because you don't seem to, in all honesty.

I am speaking about his policy during his presidency, not what remarks he made after 9/11. They have no bearing on his policy.

I agree the U.S. was trying to promote it through internal methods. But, my point is and was 9/11 changed that. After 9/11 W came out with a policy that said America can no longer afford SH as a variable in the war on terror. Clinton and Kerry agree with that.

Here is a pretty thorough doc. on the regime change policy

http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/o...tion/14391.pdf

Here is the Iraq Liberation Act Clinton signed in 1998. http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Interestingly, here is a quote from it "SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

That sounds awfully familiar to W's policy - granted Clinton did not invade in a rush to implement it.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Smoke 'em out of their hole.

We're gonna smoke 'em out!

[MikeVielhaber]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Then why on earth are you wasting your precious time reading these threads? You've gone far out of your way to point out how very little extra time you have-especially for politics.

i read about politics all the time. i watch it on tv. i read it in the paper. i dont read it off of john kerry's website. i don't read it off of george's website either though i do visit occasionally. we talk about it in government class as well. i don't go read things that take me an hour to read. and if i were to pull my stuff from a website i wouldn't posted hour long excerpts either. i would sum it down what i got out of it and then posted the link. nobody here probably went and read all the long ass stuff you posted.

plus this must be your job or something for you to have all of these websites and links about everything known to man. do you spend alot of time doing this stuff? cause i have other things i do. i work....i go to school....i have hobbies.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree the U.S. was trying to promote it through internal methods. But, my point is and was 9/11 changed that. After 9/11 W came out with a policy that said America can no longer afford SH as a variable in the war on terror. Clinton and Kerry agree with that.

Here is a pretty thorough doc. on the regime change policy

http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/o...tion/14391.pdf

Here is the Iraq Liberation Act Clinton signed in 1998. http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Interestingly, here is a quote from it "SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

That sounds awfully familiar to W's policy - granted Clinton did not invade in a rush to implement it.

I've read it numerous times, darling, and have that exact doc on my bookshelf.

What I was asking for were the specifics on the policy. You simply posted the most general of assessments. To be more specific, his policy was to promote regime change in Iraq by giving $97 million to Iraqi opposition forces to overthrow Saddam and promote democracy. The US was not going to do anything but give them military assistance and, in the end, US involvment with Iraq in the late-nineties was looked at with scorn by the US population and this policy was abandoned. By 2000, Iraq was a non-issue.

Oh, and from '93 up until '98, the policy was simply to enforce sanctions.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Here is the Iraq Liberation Act Clinton signed in 1998. http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Interestingly, here is a quote from it "SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

And if you read more of that document you will see that it supports regime change from within. Clever editing there.

Bush I supported this policy when he told the people of Iraq to "rise up" after we left them hanging after the Gulf War. Of course, since they had little means of resistance, they were crushed by Saddam's army. Hence the mass graves and ensuing hatred that propelled the terrorist acts agianst the US since.