Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 158

Thread: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

  1. #81
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    Ah... when Clinton declared that Saddam's regime posed a nuclear, biological and chemical threat, he was basing his actions on solid and accurate intelligence. When Bush declared that Saddam's regime posed a nuclear, biological and chemical threat, he was lying. Got it.
    Give that boy a Gold Star!
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  2. #82
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Let's see, Clinton was prez thru '99. There were specific attacks, and threats, that Clinton responded to. Do you understand that? Iraq actually attacked something.
    What was the specific attack that Clinton was responding to when he ordered air strikes against Iraq in 1998?

  3. #83
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,441

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    What's lamer is that Bush bashers brush this under the rug. The existence of WMD were 'Bush' lies. Forget about the fact that President Clinton said 'exactly the same thing' for years.

    YouTube - President Clinton orders attack on Iraq
    Don't even try to go here. This in no way exonerates Bush and is simply a smoke screen I see your side throw when you are against the ropes. You have to take the intel and information that was coming out of Iraq at the time that BUSH made his decision to invade.

    And Clinton didn't say "Saddam has WMD's." He said we were attacking to degrade his capability to produce them. He said that Saddam wasn't cooperating with attempts to determine if he actually had WMD's. He said Saddam has used them in the past, and Clinton believed that he would use them again if he were allowed to obtain them.

    All this was in 1998. Things had changed as of 2003. The IAEA and our CSG were urging restraint and vigorously advising against invasion. Our intelligence communities could not confirm that he had WMD's, period. There wasn't any solid evidence to support the claim that Saddam had WMD's. It was never presented to the U.S., it has still not been presented. If you look at what information was cited as "evidence" for justifying the invasion it was incredibly suspect at best.

    So don't fall back on Bill Clinton to try and justify George Bush's actions. They are absolutely different times, different circumstances, and different responses. One does not vindicate the other. It matters not what Clinton said then, but what Bush did when he did it.
    *insert profound statement here*

  4. #84
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,441

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    What was the specific attack that Clinton was responding to when he ordered air strikes against Iraq in 1998?
    Who said Clinton was right in doing what he did? Further, Clinton's response was a far cry from Bush's. Did Clinton have the IAEA and his own advisers telling him "don't do this"?
    *insert profound statement here*

  5. #85
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    All this was in 1998. Things had changed as of 2003.
    Really?

    Sen. Joseph Biden Liberal Democrat -Del., Sept 4, 2002 - If we wait for the danger from Saddham to become clear, it could be too late.

    Sen. Hillary Clinton, Liberal Democrat - NY, Feb 5, 2003 - Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

    Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Democrat -CT, Sept 4, 2002 - Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.
    Iraq WMD


  6. #86
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,441

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    Really?

    Iraq WMD

    You're confusing ignorant politicians with the facts on the ground. What had changed was Saddams level of cooperation, was the fact that we had people in the intelligence community stating "we don't think they have WMD's and we don't think an invasion is warranted." At best you had raw, unvetted intel suggesting that Saddam had restarted his program, intel that was suspect and eventually proven to be false. Motivated by greed. Or you had theories. We never had any hard evidence, period. Who gives a crap what Hillary Clinton said? Our government failed us in this matter. And Bush was the man speaking the words. The White House ran a full blown campaign to justify this invasion and that involved pulling select members of Congress in and giving them just enough information to allow them to form an opinion. There are a number of literary works that describe this chain of events in detail, complete with names and statements to wit.

    But again, I see you falling back on others to try and mitigate the lies and mistakes of George W. Bush. "But Joe said..." doesn't float. Joe got his info from the White House.
    Last edited by Lerxst; 05-05-09 at 11:07 PM.
    *insert profound statement here*

  7. #87
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    For those who continue the lame old argument that Bush was 'secretly' planning to oust Saddam before he took office, perhaps they should revisit the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated:

    "It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime."
    One could surmise that Congress was 'planning' Bush's strategy years before Bush was elected. Of course reasonable people examine the history, the context, and the perceived level of risk when presidents make difficult and controversial decisions. Partisans simply shout 'liar.'


  8. #88
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,441

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    For those who continue the lame old argument that Bush was 'secretly' planning to oust Saddam before he took office, perhaps they should revisit the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated:



    One could surmise that Congress was 'planning' Bush's strategy years before Bush was elected. Of course reasonable people examine the history, the context, and the perceived level of risk when presidents make difficult and controversial decisions. Partisans simply shout 'liar.'

    Well, here is the next fallback line of defense...invoke the Clinton Iraq Liberation Act. Reasonable people actually research the information they are going to post and don't leave out stuff like this...
    The Act also said that:

    Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

    Section 4(a)(2) states:

    The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for [Iraqi democratic opposition] organizations.
    This in no way predicated Bush's act of war, utilizing U.S. forces. The intent of the act was to support regime change from within Iraq, not an invasion of Iraq.

    What's next?
    Last edited by Lerxst; 05-05-09 at 11:13 PM.
    *insert profound statement here*

  9. #89
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    This in no way predicated Bush's act of war, utilizing U.S. forces. The intent of the act was to support regime change from within Iraq, not an invasion of Iraq.

    What's next?
    9/11 was next.

    Followed by the Iraq War Resolution, approved with overwhelming majorities in both House and Senate, which authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post


    While he was not cooperative with U.N. inspectors in the end he conceded. The IAEA as well as our own CSG, CIA, and DIA could not with any certainty verify that there were any WMD's at all. In fact the CSG said they were convinced there weren't any and that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. or her allies.
    They could not confirm there were NO weapons and furthermore the weapons inspectors could not even confirm or offer assurance that Iraq was fully cooperating.

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •