NationStates Jolt Archive

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."

yup, It was none other than Bill Clinton who uttered those words in 1998 about Iraq. SO, can we stop with this notion of it just being Bush's folley? Obviously more people than Bush felt regime change was necessary, even your precious Bill Clinton.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."

yup, It was none other than Bill Clinton who uttered those words in 1998 about Iraq. SO, can we stop with this notion of it just being Bush's folley? Obviously more people than Bush felt regime change was necessary, even your precious Bill Clinton.Notice how, unlike Bush, Clinton didn't invade Iraq?

"We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."

I don't see any mention of an invasion there.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."

yup, It was none other than Bill Clinton who uttered those words in 1998 about Iraq. SO, can we stop with this notion of it just being Bush's folley? Obviously more people than Bush felt regime change was necessary, even your precious Bill Clinton.
Note the working with Iraqi opposition forces. Note the lack of invading Iraq there. Note the idea of time and effort as opposed to 'invade and they'll welcome us with roses'.

Where in that quote does Clinton advocate invading Iraq, much less making up BS about WMDs that didn't exist?

Where in that quote does Clinton advocate invading Iraq, much less making up BS about WMDs that didn't exist?

i wouldnt go so far my friend, i didnt hi-light the entire quote which states that saddam must not be allowed to retain stockpiles of chemical weapons, as he cannot be trusted, but you're right, clinton never publically stated that he wanted to invade iraq. but he did stress that US aided regime change was necessary.

Note the words "effectively" and "prudently," as well as "will take time and effort," all of which bits of advice were ignored in practice by the next president.

There was nothing wrong with wanting Saddam out of office; there's plenty wrong with the war in Iraq.

i wouldnt go so far my friend, i didnt hi-light the entire quote which states that saddam must not be allowed to retain stockpiles of chemical weapons, as he cannot be trusted, but you're right, clinton never publically stated that he wanted to invade iraq. but he did stress that US aided regime change was necessary.
Funny how you don't offer quotes for those claims...

i wouldnt go so far my friend, i didnt hi-light the entire quote which states that saddam must not be allowed to retain stockpiles of chemical weapons, as he cannot be trusted, but you're right, clinton never publically stated that he wanted to invade iraq. but he did stress that US aided regime change was necessary.Clinton also never did invade Iraq, nor did he torpedo attempts to discover whether Saddam actually had WMDs.

Your argument boils down to: "Bush isn't an idiot because he made the same mistake Clinton secretly wanted to make but didn't."

Note the words "effectively" and "prudently," as well as "will take time and effort," all of which bits of advice were ignored in practice by the next president.

There was nothing wrong with wanting Saddam out of office; there's plenty wrong with the war in Iraq.

theres nothing wrong with the war in iraq. at the time it was perfectly justified by over 3/4 of congress and about 60% of americans. they way its being handled is whats flat out wrong iraq. (i'll even agree with you there) you must remember that although germany france and russia didnt support the war, their intelligence as well as ours said that WMD's in iraq were a certainty. And people PLEASE its not like bush sat down and said...hmm what can i make up today. He has daily CIA briefings he knows only what the CIA tells him, if what the CIA tells him is wrong...whoops sorry...its not like bush went to iraq himself...saw no weapons and then just said there were weapons everywhere. if the most respected intelligence agency in the world says something is there...chances are likely...something there...just so happens they were wrong.

Funny how you don't offer quotes for those claims...


would you like me to use my amazing copy and paste powers. cuz i can do it in like 2 seconds...its not that difficult.

theres nothing wrong with the war in iraq. Apart from it still going on after it was declared finished.
at the time it was perfectly justified by over 3/4 of congress and about 60% of americans. Nope.
they way its being handled is whats flat out wrong iraq. (i'll even agree with you there) That's good, at least.
you must remember that although germany france and russia didnt support the war, their intelligence as well as ours said that WMD's in iraq were a certainty. Nooo. A high probability. The thing that would have supplied certainty was the weapons inspections, which all three were willing to sit out and let finish. The Bush administration decided to go ahead in what appears to be an attempt to meet a time schedule as well as cover up that Saddam didn't have any.
Bush probably believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. But the fact that he was unwilling to wait for the results of the weapons inspectors shows that he did not want to risk being proven wrong.
And people PLEASE its not like bush sat down and said...hmm what can i make up today. He has daily CIA briefings he knows only what the CIA tells him, if what the CIA tells him is wrong...whoops sorry...its not like bush went to iraq himself...saw no weapons and then just said there were weapons everywhere. Well, Powell delivered tampered "evidence" in the SC, and he clearly knew it was bullshit as he admitted later on. Why assume that Bush was totally ignorant instead of willfully lying?
if the most respected intelligence agency in the world says something is there...chances are likely...something there...just so happens they were wrong.Hm. I hope you're not referring to the CIA. They can hardly be referred to as the most respected intelligence agency in the world.

Nooo. A high probability. The thing that would have supplied certainty was the weapons inspections, which all three were willing to sit out and let finish. The Bush administration decided to go ahead in what appears to be an attempt to meet a time schedule as well as cover up that Saddam didn't have any.


Not even high, just some probability. It's curious how Bush rushed to war when it seemed likely that the inspectors wouldn't find any evidence.

at the time it was perfectly justified by over 3/4 of congress and about 60% of americans.Nope.

could i please remind you that even John Kerry supported the war in Iraq

The thing that would have supplied certainty was the weapons inspections, which all three were willing to sit out and let finish. The Bush administration decided to go ahead in what appears to be an attempt to meet a time schedule as well as cover up that Saddam didn't have any.
Bush probably believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. But the fact that he was unwilling to wait for the results of the weapons inspectors shows that he did not want to risk being proven wrong.

no, it was because he did not want to wait for such a flawed group as the United Nations (the weapons inspectors in charge of iraq at the time).

remember, it was we, the united states, that gave those same weapons to Iraq in 1981... read into the "Iran Contra" scandal of the Reagan Administration.

At the time it was perfectly justified by over 3/4 of congress and about 60% of americans.

The Salem Witch Trials were normally conducted with the approval of the majority of the community. That didn't make them anything less than travesties of justice though.

remember, it was we, the united states, that gave those same weapons to Iraq in 1981... read into the "Iran Contra" scandal of the Reagan Administration.

Those weapons, even if they did still exist, wouldn't have held up to any of G.W. Bush's claims. Degradation would have rendered them harmless by the time of the inspections, not to mention the fact that he claimed Saddam was manufacturing them. Having US given shells is not the same as making your own. Nobody other than the war junkies would have voted for it had Bush simply said "Yeah, we gave him some shells 20 years ago. Now we should go and take it away from him"

Those weapons, even if they did still exist, wouldn't have held up to any of G.W. Bush's claims. Degradation would have rendered them harmless by the time of the inspections, not to mention the fact that he claimed Saddam was manufacturing them. Having US given shells is not the same as making your own. Nobody other than the war junkies would have voted for it had Bush simply said "Yeah, we gave him some shells 20 years ago. Now we should go and take it away from him"

im not talking just shells... nerve toxins.

the very same that we feared iraqis would use against us.

and equally surprisingly, this one WAS Bush:
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.

We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Unfortunately, it was Daddy Bush, in 1998. If only Baby Bush had listened to Papa!

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

and equally surprisingly, this one WAS Bush:

Unfortunately, it was Daddy Bush, in 1998. If only Baby Bush had listened to Papa!

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

to quote robin williams:

"some men are born great. some men achieve greatness. some get it as a graduation gift."

im not talking just shells... nerve toxins.

the very same that we feared iraqis would use against us.

What do you think those shells the US gave to Iraq were filled with? Cotton candy? Either way, those would be 20 year old shells with 20 year old degraded toxin about as lethal as the common cold.

Look, the administration claimed that Iraq was MANUFACTURING the stuff. There was no evidence to indicate that to date, and it's likely there never will be, primarily because they weren't. So until you have proof to the contrary, real actual proof and not the "They took it to syria" or "Iraq's a big place" rubbish, you can't say that there was a threat.

Where in that quote does Clinton advocate invading Iraq, much less making up BS about WMDs that didn't exist?

I'd just like to point out that according to the BBC, Polish troops did find 17 warheads containing cyclosarin, more powerful than sarin, Polish officials said. There's a link to the story directly to the right of the second to last word in this sentance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3861197.stm).

So there were chemical weapons. Not really a weapon of mass destruction so much as a weapon of mass murder. And to be fair anyone and I mean anyone can make poison. Cyclosarin is a toughy but there are lots of improvised poisons nearly as deadly.

Also, who in their right mind would throw their support behind Saddam after he gassed some and tossed others into woodchippers feet-first just to hear them scream.

I'd just like to point out that according to the BBC, Polish troops did find 17 warheads containing cyclosarin, more powerful than sarin, Polish officials said. There's a link to the story directly to the right of the second to last word in this sentance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3861197.stm).

So there were chemical weapons. Not really a weapon of mass destruction so much as a weapon of mass murder. And to be fair anyone and I mean anyone can make poison. Cyclosarin is a toughy but there are lots of improvised poisons nearly as deadly.

It's no doubt that there were chemical weapons at one point - the question is whether these weapons were remains from the Iraq-Iran war or produced at a later date.
Tests indicated some warheads contain cyclosarin, more powerful than sarin, Polish officials say.

But the US military said that while two of the rockets tested positive for sarin, traces of the agent were so small and deteriorated as to be virtually harmless.

These are not the weapons they went to war over.

i wouldnt go so far my friend, i didnt hi-light the entire quote which states that saddam must not be allowed to retain stockpiles of chemical weapons, as he cannot be trusted, but you're right, clinton never publically stated that he wanted to invade iraq. but he did stress that US aided regime change was necessary.

But as nowhere does he advocate charging in there and saying Freedom excessively for the following few years to justify it, thats you fairly fucked, pointwise, isnt't it?

Clinton also never did invade Iraq, nor did he torpedo attempts to discover whether Saddam actually had WMDs.

Your argument boils down to: "Bush isn't an idiot because he made the same mistake Clinton secretly wanted to make but didn't."

Well, that kinda says everything that's needed to say in this thread, doesn't it...

Thank you, and have a nice day :)

Why is it that, if you dislike Bush, you must somehow like Clinton? I don't understand the logic behind that. It's like saying that if you dislike Hitler, you must somehow like Stalin. Silly bumpkins.

I also don't understand how anyone is *still* supporting this disastrous failure of a war after all this time.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."

yup, It was none other than Bill Clinton who uttered those words in 1998 about Iraq. SO, can we stop with this notion of it just being Bush's folley? Obviously more people than Bush felt regime change was necessary, even your precious Bill Clinton.
Who actually sent troops in? And who didn't send enough troops in? And who lied in order to get the support of the US public in order to send troops in? And who put incompetent idiots in charge of overseeing all that?

Bush

So fuck your false equivalencies. You support Bush, so you own this war and all the death that's come as a result of it. That blood on your hands will never come off.

Why is it that, if you dislike Bush, you must somehow like Clinton? I don't understand the logic behind that. It's like saying that if you dislike Hitler, you must somehow like Stalin. Silly bumpkins.

I also don't understand how anyone is *still* supporting this disastrous failure of a war after all this time.

Some people will go to any length immaginable if the alternative is to admit they were wrong...

Some people will go to any length immaginable if the alternative is to admit they were wrong...

It's an ego/pride thing.

If these people believe so much in this war, why don't they go enlist and fight in it themselves?

Notice how, unlike Bush, Clinton didn't invade Iraq?

I'm sure he would have, if he'd had the political will at home.

It's an ego/pride thing.

If these people believe so much in this war, why don't they go enlist and fight in it themselves?

Cause they're arrogant, not stupid, silly. ;)

Cause they're arrogant, not stupid, silly. ;)

You sure about that? To actually believe some of the things they do requires a lot of self-deceit and willful ignorance.

I'm sure he would have, if he'd had the political will at home.

I don't think he would have, not without UN approval.

But who knows and who cares? Coulda, shoulda, woulda, it's all quite hypotetical and irrelevant - Bush did it, Clinton did not. Period.

theres nothing wrong with the war in iraq. at the time it was perfectly justified by over 3/4 of congress and about 60% of americans. they way its being handled is whats flat out wrong iraq. (i'll even agree with you there) you must remember that although germany france and russia didnt support the war, their intelligence as well as ours said that WMD's in iraq were a certainty. And people PLEASE its not like bush sat down and said...hmm what can i make up today. He has daily CIA briefings he knows only what the CIA tells him, if what the CIA tells him is wrong...whoops sorry...its not like bush went to iraq himself...saw no weapons and then just said there were weapons everywhere. if the most respected intelligence agency in the world says something is there...chances are likely...something there...just so happens they were wrong.

The problem with this assuption is that the CIA told him with certainity that there were WMD and this i not the case. When you cherrypick intelligence and have Dick Cheney pressuring analysts to give them the info you want then you're bound to get the result. Let's just say 90% of the information says there are no weapons in my home and only %10 says there are. You choose to highlight the %10 and ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is the situation as was highlighted by the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE who found that there was no reason to believe Saddam had WMD before or after the war. If you'd like a link I can use my cut and paste skills in 2.5 seconds as well, but we all know this to be true. Please come up with a new argument instead of regurgitating the same debunked lines. :fluffle:

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."

yup, It was none other than Bill Clinton who uttered those words in 1998 about Iraq. SO, can we stop with this notion of it just being Bush's folley? Obviously more people than Bush felt regime change was necessary, even your precious Bill Clinton.

Sheesh. Everything is Bill Clinton's fault, okay? We determined that weeks ago. Your cat died? Bill Clinton's fault. Ken Lay stole your pension? Clinton. Can't get lucky on a Friday night? That darned Clinton!

Oh, and you may have noticed that Clinton didn't invade Iraq, smash it to pieces and then, when asked about an exit strategy, say that would be an iddue for future presidents. Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz, they screwed up in Iraq. Maybe the Administration should stop wasting time trying to wriggle out of the blame and do something to fix things over there.

Sheesh.