the poor Democrats

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

All of that is fine and dandy and perhaps even truw - but and again, the D's killed hundreds of thousands of iraqi's in the Clinton Administration and mostly went along with W down this path. Thus, the D's are to blame as well and are not about to open this Pandora's Box.

The Ds condoned the war and acted powerless and they should be ashamed for that. Perhaps many were even for the war. That doesn't mean Bush isn't a liar. There is no connection between Ds having accountability for the war and Bush being a liar. Sometimes the connections you make are tangential and confusing IMO.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

The Ds condoned the war and acted powerless and they should be ashamed for that. Perhaps many were even for the war. That doesn't mean Bush isn't a liar. There is no connection between Ds having accountability for the war and Bush being a liar. Sometimes the connections you make are tangential and confusing IMO.

I am not saying W is unaccountable. Please do not ever confuse me saying that when I say almost everyone went along with him on the march to war and that Clinton slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's based on essentially the same intelligence. All of that is one big bad, bad act and I excuse no one, esp. W. The reason I bring it up and brought it up in this thread is that the D's are bitching and moaning about the DSM yet, nothing will ever come of it because the D's are not about to sacrifice their own, esp. both Clintons (the big money makers), in the process of getting W. That is why I am making the connection here.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

All of that is fine and dandy and perhaps even truw - but and again, the D's killed hundreds of thousands of iraqi's in the Clinton Administration and mostly went along with W down this path. Thus, the D's are to blame as well and are not about to open this Pandora's Box.

If Saddam would have complied with the resolutions he wouldn't have been sanctioned in the first place.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

If Saddam would have complied with the resolutions he wouldn't have been sanctioned in the first place.

I know- which is my point - SH is ultimately responsible for the invasion of Iraq, though W's actions and the US and UN's actions over the last 15 or so years were deplorable. I think I am missing something in you statement though

And, as an aside, if ole Poppy Bush had not obeyed the Saudis and taken out SH in the first Gulf War, we would be in a different and IMO better situation today judt by the fact that millions of Iraqi lives perhaps could have been saved by installing a puppet leadership then as opposed to now. of course, the UN would not have that because they had to line their pockets too, along with the French and the Russians. The whole thing makes me sick.

[irishgrl]

Seriously, both parties have killed hundreds of thousands in the name of the WMD and SH's refusal to account for them as he agreed to do in the treaty that ended the first Gulf War. Thus, my point earlier that W will never be impeached on acting on SH'd refusal, however disingenuous W was. BTW - W never used the word connection, he used the word contacts, which there were, though they were mostly insignificant - thus, he also will never be impeached on that.

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.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The whole thing makes me sick.

on THAT we can agree

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

on THAT we can agree

Yes, all three of us. And I love reading people's points of view because I have learned so much from you all.

[strandinthewind]

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Yes, all three of us. And I love reading people's points of view because I have learned so much from you all.

I agree. I love to read other people's opinions. I rarely agree with Mary and we fight a lot, but I like reading her opinions - the same with your's and many others

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

Jason, as an attorney, I know you know what intent means: it is the motivation behind an action...Clinton's actions may have been based on the same faulty INFO as Bush's, I dont know. But the REASON behind each man's actions was vastly DIFFERENT: Bush was motivated by GREED, and POWER. He was bound and determined to control Iraq's OIL. Clinton had NO such motivation. Therefore, I maintain the INTENT was at polar opposites.

As for Bush having 9/11 to use as an excuse, there's the fact that the Bushies knew about THAT too and didnt stop it. Think of how many thousands of lives he could have saved and didnt? Not to mention the flower of our next generation dying by the hundreds? Clinton didnt ask that of this country.

Clinton didnt have NEAR the emphasis on his bombing that W has on his phony war. There is NO comparison. W is a criminal of the highest order, and if lying about having sex with a woman is worth getting impeached over, then Lying about a war and sending thousands of our young men to die to fight this goddam phony freakin war is even MORE worthy of impeachment.

As I recall, you bought into that whole WMD argument hook line and sinker and now that I can say I told you so, you cover yer butt by saying "well W was wrong BUT SO IS CLINTON!" Which is about the LAMEST excuse an intelligent person could offer--it seems like a knee jerk reaction with some people, to always find a way to blame Clinton for everything! The man isnt even President and yet everything is his fault! Its hilarious!


btw: I know Im on the right track if you come out on the opposite side of me in any discussion.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason, as an attorney, I know you know what intent means: it is the motivation behind an action...Clinton's actions may have been based on the same faulty INFO as Bush's, I dont know.

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

But the REASON behind each man's actions was vastly DIFFERENT: Bush was motivated by GREED, and POWER. He was bound and determined to control Iraq's OIL. Clinton had NO such motivation. Therefore, I maintain the INTENT was at polar opposites.

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

As for Bush having 9/11 to use as an excuse, there's the fact that the Bushies knew about THAT too and didnt stop it.

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Think of how many thousands of lives he could have saved and didnt? Not to mention the flower of our next generation dying by the hundreds? Clinton didnt ask that of this country.

Clinton didnt have NEAR the emphasis on his bombing that W has on his phony war. There is NO comparison. W is a criminal of the highest order, and if lying about having sex with a woman is worth getting impeached over, then Lying about a war and sending thousands of our young men to die to fight this goddam phony freakin war is even MORE worthy of impeachment.

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

As I recall, you bought into that whole WMD argument hook line and sinker and now that I can say I told you so, you cover yer butt by saying "well W was wrong BUT SO IS CLINTON!" Which is about the LAMEST excuse an intelligent person could offer--it seems like a knee jerk reaction with some people, to always find a way to blame Clinton for everything! The man isnt even President and yet everything is his fault! Its hilarious!

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

btw: I know Im on the right track if you come out on the opposite side of me in any discussion.

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.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

1) The Difference between Clinton and Bush's actions against SH is that Clinton acted with the blessing of the UN, Bush did NOT. Just because two Presidents used faulty info doesnt mean their motivations were the same. Bush used WMD as an EXCUSE to get at the OIL. To do that he had to discredit SH. To discredit SH, he used the "faulty" info (by the way werent YOU the one that said it WASNT faulty because the US SOLD the WMD to SH in the first place? That was your whole rationale for supporting this bogus war to begin with and now that there are NO WMD, you suddenly believe the info was "faulty" how convenient. At any rate, saying that Clinton was also wrong is unfair because he wasnt aware the info was faulty, whereas Bush DID know, but did his best to ignore it AND convince the world it was true via his various mouthpieces. IMO, THAT constitutes malfeasance of the highest order, to deliberately mislead the American public that way and put our young people in harm's way all to secure more O.I.L. (wish I had a barfing smiley)

2) no, I am going by daily news reports from NPR etc that confirm that this Iraq invasion was planned long before 9/11, and that W chose to IGNORE evidence of an impending attack because it wasnt on his radar. He then capitalized on the National OUTRAGE to get support for his agenda. THAT is disgusting.

3) I dont know WHAT W has in his personal bank account and never said so. I SAID that W saw to it that his cronies got lucrative contracts worth billions. FACT.

4) you brought up Clinton the minute I made a comment about W...it seems to be a knee jerk reaction of yours to ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS say: Well the GOP (or the Repugs or W, you use the same argument for all of them) may be doing wrong, BUT SO DID CLINTON!! ALWAYS! its as certain as death and taxes. you cant seem to say "Yep, ol W is screwing up" and leave it at that...
You've already bashed Clinton to death about Clinton related actions, why bring him up when he's not doing anything NOW??????? As far as Im concerned the two ARENT related. If Clinton was wrong for what he did, then WHY did W do the same? the answer lies in the MOTIVATION as I said.
Clinton's was based on faulty info, W's was based on GREED and POWER. Clinton deplored the loss of life, W does NOT. TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

5) Again and for the record because you just keep getting mixed UP: IMO, Bush fully intended to invade Iraq long before he did so. He just needed the right excuse that the Nation and the World would buy. 9/11 was the catalyst to get National support, WMD was the reason he used with the UN (and thus the World). The UN wasnt biting and neither did I. I find it most interesting how you change your position from your original stance. MOST interesting.

[irishgrl]

With hat in hand, I stand corrected for earlier comnments that we would find something.

at least HERE you had the grace to admit it....

edit: Jason, I found a good Link Regarding Bush's Agenda. Also, I found this article on Haliburton fromDemocracyNOW I hope you'll take a look at....

I also want to say that in looking over your old posts, we actually dont disagree as much as you seem to think--maybe the real reason we are always on opposite sides is we both like to argue? I liked a LOT of what I saw that you had posted in the past.....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

at least HERE you had the grace to admit it....

if you go to this thread
you will see an article YOU posted about Haliburton and their MISMANAGEMENT of funds etc in Iraq (so much for defending them)

edit: Jason, I get a lot of my info from DemocracyNOW and I think its more accurate than mainstream media, especially Fox news which you seem to be so fond of....

I also want to say that in looking over your old posts, we actually don't disagree as much as you seem to think--maybe the real reason we are always on opposite sides is we both like to argue? I liked a LOT of what I saw that you had posted in the past.....

I know - we agree that W is the worst thing that has happened to this country in a long, long time and not only on Iraq. I just think out loud before concluding and I hate general statements that tend IMO to exonerate all culpable parties, which in this case are many on both sides of the aisle as the war in Iraq has been going on far longer than our actual invasion of that country, which complicates the situation.

In the end, this is how I feel:

1. Bush alone is responsible for the current war in Iraq. He and his henchmen manipulated the intelligence to suit his purposes and then when WMD, which the world via the UN unanimously thought were there, were not discovered, Bush said essentially "oh well who cares because SH was a bad guy." That was a horrible thing to do and I think he should be impeached for that and, perhaps more importantly, the apparent complete lack of a plan to win the peace after the initial invasion and his other significant and numerous "errors" in the war on terror. I also think the corruption in the UN, France, and Russia certainly did not help matters - but in the end, Bush pushed for it and he must take the blame, which he will not do. Sadly, people buy into his BS because they hate all Muslims and do not really care which ones die as long as they die.

2. In the discussion of the Downing Street Memo. and its text implicating Bush in the manipulation of the WMD intelligence to wage an already planned war, I maintain the D's cannot and will not impeach Bush on this for two related reasons. First, too many D's voted to give W the authority to go to war based on the intelligence and these same D's had been vociferous in the past about ousting SH, making him comply with the UN, etc. - all based essentially on this same intelligence. Second, Clinton, with the support of the D's, also killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and also outright attacked Iraq and risked an all out war in that region based essentially on this same intelligence, which he still stands by to this day. Thus, the D's will never go to impeach Bush on this topic - if anything, Clinton will not let them because his and the D's hands are too dirty, though perhaps not as dirty as Bush in this particular war or last set of events in Iraq. That is the only reason I brought up Clinton in this thread.

3. Though the people that actually do the grunt work for Halliburton and related companies mostly are good people (I actually know many because I am from a oil service related town) - the fact that Halliburton got a no bid contract now or at any other time is horrible and I wish the D's would investigate that, but I think they know their hands are too dirty there as well given their past support of Halliburton.

BTW - almost all of the Fox articles I cite are AP articles that could be found on just about all large news cites. I tend to avoid cites like the one you cited because I am not fond of one sided opinions, which I think the AP is not.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know - we agree that W is the worst thing that has happened to this country in a long, long time and not only on Iraq. I just think out loud before concluding and I hate general statements that tend IMO to exonerate all culpable parties, which in this case are many on both sides of the aisle as the war in Iraq has been going on far longer than our actual invasion of that country, which complicates the situation.

In the end, this is how I feel:

1. Bush alone is responsible for the current war in Iraq. He and his henchmen manipulated the intelligence to suit his purposes and then when WMD, which the world via the UN unanimously thought were there, were not discovered, Bush said essentially "oh well who cares because SH was a bad guy." That was a horrible thing to do and I think he should be impeached for that and, perhaps more importantly, the apparent complete lack of a plan to win the peace after the initial invasion and his other significant and numerous "errors" in the war on terror. I also think the corruption in the UN, France, and Russia certainly did not help matters - but in the end, Bush pushed for it and he must take the blame, which he will not do. Sadly, people buy into his BS because they hate all Muslims and do not really care which ones die as long as they die.

2. In the discussion of the Downing Street Memo. and its text implicating Bush in the manipulation of the WMD intelligence to wage an already planned war, I maintain the D's cannot and will not impeach Bush on this for two related reasons. First, too many D's voted to give W the authority to go to war based on the intelligence and these same D's had been vociferous in the past about ousting SH, making him comply with the UN, etc. - all based essentially on this same intelligence. Second, Clinton, with the support of the D's, also killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and also outright attacked Iraq and risked an all out war in that region based essentially on this same intelligence, which he still stands by to this day. Thus, the D's will never go to impeach Bush on this topic - if anything, Clinton will not let them because his and the D's hands are too dirty, though perhaps not as dirty as Bush in this particular war or last set of events in Iraq. That is the only reason I brought up Clinton in this thread.

3. Though the people that actually do the grunt work for Halliburton and related companies mostly are good people (I actually know many because I am from a oil service related town) - the fact that Halliburton got a no bid contract now or at any other time is horrible and I wish the D's would investigate that, but I think they know their hands are too dirty there as well given their past support of Halliburton.

BTW - almost all of the Fox articles I cite are AP articles that could be found on just about all large news cites. I tend to avoid cites like the one you cited because I am not fond of one sided opinions, which I think the AP is not.

I like AP too, but Ive long since stopped relying on ONLY mainstream media, which is why I go to NPR and PBS (btw, the House is NOT slashing as much as they were which is good...) for the bulk of my news.

I consider you a fair minded person, and I know you are well informed. I also think we actually could probably find a lot we agree on. And I will say this, even when we DO disagree, you are a gentleman first, last and always and dont stoop to personal attacks. For that, I thank you

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . And I will say this, even when we DO disagree, you are a gentleman first, last and always and dont stoop to personal attacks. For that, I thank you

YOU ARE A MOTHER%&#$%(*&%)(*$&%)($&*%)(&)^@ -- sis%% - mother%&%*&*%&)(#&$)*# -- O*UT)IO&*)(#&$)(#&*$)(#&$ -- panty revealing and listing spin immediately following

so there