On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree and have not stated anything but that. He is not saying he would not have gone to war nor is he disagreeing with the premisis of the the war - the WMD issues. He is just disagreeing with the timing. He thinks, as I do, that W rushed to war. AND, we have now come to know that that rush to war was done without proper preparation of your troops. There is evidence that the guardsmen in the prisons were not trained to do that job and look at the price we have paid. W needs to be removed for that. His judgement in the rush to war is what I am against.

And he isn't saying that he would have gone to war, either. You're simply spinning it, the same thing you accuse us of always doing.

The thing that I don't think you realize is that the reason we went to war so quickly was so that the lies of this administration weren't debunked. if they had let it drag out for months, some of the truth would have come out and public support would have dropped.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I could be wrong, but as I remember, the airstrikes lasted for only four or five days. Hardly the brink of war, my delusional friend. AND - the public VEHEMENTLY disapproved of any sort of war with iraq in '98.

Well, if SH had struck at Isreal in retaliation - that would have been an all out war because Israel made it clear they would strike back. Go back and look up the articles from that time period. You just refuse to acknowledge this fact. So, that was a risk Clinton took. That is how much he believed SH had WMD. He still believes this. And, I am not spinning it. His statements I quoted are not that he would not have gone to war. He never says that. Instead, he just objects to the timing not the event. He also agreed that after 9/11 the US had a duty to make SH comply with his obligations at the end of the first Gulf War. The risks was too great no to do so. I agree it is speculation whether Clinton would have gone to war because he is not the President, W is (remember that argument). But, Clinton supported W's actions and disagrees only with the timing of the war. Clinton and Kerry for that matter both think and thought SH needed to be removed. That speaks volumes to me. In a way, W and Clinton are allies here. But, the far left will never concede that fact. They just cannot. It would be a sacriledge of sorts. I, on the other hand and unlike the far left and far right, have no problem with calling a spade a spade - apparently neither does Clinton and I respect him for that.

Edit: If you do a google search for "1998 Israel Iraq strike missile" some articles come up. Variations of the terms leads to more articles.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

And he isn't saying that he would have gone to war, either. You're simply spinning it, the same thing you accuse us of always doing.

The thing that I don't think you realize is that the reason we went to war so quickly was so that the lies of this administration weren't debunked. if they had let it drag out for months, some of the truth would have come out and public support would have dropped.

Well, now we are after the fact and the lies are not debunked at least not according to the former Pres., the current Pres., and the heir apparent to the Democratic nomination. I cannot believe none of them would use any contrary facts to their political advantage.

Again, I think the rush to war was not justified.

[dissention]

And Bush never linked Iraq with 9/11.

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I was wrong, you were right about he was not reading when the first plane hit.

He never should have gone to the school. Never.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, if SH had struck at Isreal in retaliation - that would have been an all out war because Israel made it clear they would strike back. Go back and look up the articles from that time period. You just refuse to acknowledge this fact. So, that was a risk Clinton took. That is how much he believed SH had WMD. He still believes this. And, I am not spinning it. His statements I quoted are not that he would not have gone to war. He never says that. Instead, he just objects to the timing not the event.

No he doesn't. He thinks the UN inspectors should have finished their job. then you are adding your spin by saying "he disagreed with the timing." Show me where he said those exact words. I submit you cannot. Also, Israel wasn't going to do anything. If Israel was going to start any ****, they would have done it when they were being scudded on a regular basis in the Gulf War. Now, it might be a different story. As I've said before, they've infiltrated the Kurd population in the north as a method of keeping an eye on Iran. They have everything to gain here and nothing to lose.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

No he doesn't. He thinks the UN inspectors should have finished their job. then you are adding your spin by saying "he disagreed with the timing." Show me where he said those exact words. I submit you cannot. Also, Israel wasn't going to do anything. If Israel was going to start any ****, they would have done it when they were being scudded on a regular basis in the Gulf War. Now, it might be a different story. As I've said before, they've infiltrated the Kurd population in the north as a method of keeping an eye on Iran. They have everything to gain here and nothing to lose.

I am talking about Israel retaliating in 1998 - Do a google seach on it. You will see I am correct - the fear was there. And, in 1991, it took a whole lot of effort on our part to get Israel not to retaliate. In fact, Israel said they would realiate in 1998. Again, go back and read the press of the day - it supports me. AND - who knows what we additional promises we had to make to Israel (the country we have been funding for years mind you ) so they would not realitate is attacked.

AND - drum roll please - You asked for it . . . .

Here is my first post from the Clinton Speaks thread (emphasis supplied):

Once again, Clinton is not exactly supporting the position that W totally made up and then lied about the WMD being a threat to the US to get Iraq's oil This is also, I believe, Kerry's position - at least in hindsight Then, Russia comes out with the intelligence that SH wanted to attack us after 9/11 - W can only get stronger based on this - Americans apparently are not willing to make the subtle distinctions required to villify W here - and that is sad IMO

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/cl...iraq/index.html

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

[strandinthewind]

It is too long to post, but here is Clinton's speech to America and the world when he sent the missles in 1998. Interestingly, it sounds alot like W's speeches today about Iraq, esp. "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html