Regime Change was Clinton Plan

[NaplesX]

I was doing some research on the claim that the Iraq war was planned before bush entered office and it turns out to be true:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/13/101255.shtml
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/439/intervw.htm
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990610/1999061021.html

I am just curious why the mainstream media has not mentioned this?

[Scott]

They have.


A hint for all future posters here at AI. Avoid "the media are not reporting on this" at all cost.

[709]

Originally posted by Scott
A hint for all future posters here at AI. Avoid "the media are not reporting on this" at all cost. LOL, Scott. You're the master of hilarity tonite. :D

[billybobsky]

because it wasn't a war that was proposed.

because it was freely open to the public record.

[giant]

Yeah, this is news. :rolleyes:

Man, Naples, last time you were a year behind. Now you aren't even in the same century?!

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Scott
They have.


A hint for all future posters here at AI. Avoid "the media are not reporting on this" at all cost. Well, maybe I did not expand enough.

It seems that I have seen on TV many democrats that opposed the war and GWB's methods, saying that this was a war planned in Texas by GWB and neo-cons, or stuff like that. Now I am not saying they were right or wrong, just I heard a lot of it on all of the political shows, CNN, Fox, ABC etc... The thing that I did not hear was anyone even mentioning these facts or this guy's name attached to the plan.

I don't watch the news all day but I try to stay current as I can. I never saw it. I had to do some digging to find this info. So I can only assume that it was passed over by the big media. I ask why?

BillyBobSky I think it was a war that was proposed, although it would have been a internal Iraq war covertly supported by the US. And your other point may be true. But that fact only raises my eyebrow even more. The media should have easy access to this information, right?

Full discloser would dictate that you as a reporter would say something like: "Charlie Rangel asserts that 'the Iraq war was planned in Texas and implemented by this crooked presidency' but our researchers here at CNN/CBS/ABC found there was a plan that was public domain, implimented by the Clinton administration to facilitate an internal coup to topple Saddam Husain. However we found no such record attached GWB before his election."

Maybe I am expecting too much from the media, but it just makes me wonder if my opinion that the media is majorly left biased is not true. Why err in favor of blemishing the office of the president?

[Kickaha]

Because it sells more papers/ads/eyeballs.

No matter *who* is in power, a smear story sells more.

So during a Dem presidency, we get right-wing-media-conspiracies, and during a Rep administration, the opposite.

I figure if they're pissing off everyone equally on alternate party zeniths, they're at least balanced, if not fair.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I had to do some digging to find this info. So I can only assume that it was passed over by the big media. I ask why?
It's a conspiracy :wow:

Or maybe because it's just newsmax taking advantage of the confused.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Yeah, this is news. :rolleyes:

Man, Naples, last time you were a year behind. Now you aren't even in the same century?! Although I really hate opening up a conversation with you, I will only say:

Your condescention is not welcome by me anymore, take it somwhere else. Thanks.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Although I really hate opening up a conversation with you, I will only say:

Your condescention is not welcome by me anymore, take it somwhere else. Thanks.
You want to know why the major news isn't reporting this right now? The same reason the NYT isn't running Monica stories on their front page in March 2004 :lol:

[giant]

BTW: by monica I am referring to a woman named monica lewinsky, who had an affair with the president a few years ago. You might not know about it because the major media is ignoring the story.

[bunge]

How does the plan followed under the Clinton Administration compare in any way to what Bush has done? It doesn't.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by bunge
How does the plan followed under the Clinton Administration compare in any way to what Bush has done? It doesn't. Come on now. I am analizing the fact that the left has accused the right, in particular the president, of planning regime change long before 9/11 and before GWB was elected.

The fact that Clinton had a plan is relevent, because follows a similar line of reasoning with a similar outcome.

But going beyond all of the usuall talking points, accusations of wrongdoing on the part of the "neo-cons" is laid mute by the fact that the Clinton admin embraced the same ends.

This would mean that Clinton and thusly the left are guilty of the same wrongdoing. Follow my logic here?

Let me make it clear that my analisis is really focused on the media not at least mentioning this. I am not defending or promoting one political idiology or another. I am just walking through the facts to gain an understanding.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Come on now. I am analizing

Yes you are!
Hey, being able to admit it is certainly the first step....
:lol:

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Come on now. I am analizing the fact that the left has accused the right, in particular the president, of planning regime change long before 9/11 and before GWB was elected.

A contingency plan is one thing, acting on it is another. There are probably plans (and have been for a long time) to attack North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Canada, Mexico and Guam. It's a fact of life.

Ousting Saddam at all costs wasn't a goal of the Clinton administration. That was Bush's true mistake.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by bunge
A contingency plan is one thing, acting on it is another. There are probably plans (and have been for a long time) to attack North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Canada, Mexico and Guam. It's a fact of life.

Ousting Saddam at all costs wasn't a goal of the Clinton administration. That was Bush's true mistake. Clinton did act on it. Did you read the links I provided? No, he did not invade. The point is he supported regime change and had a working plan that was being implimented.

I really don't want to get into the bush was right/clinton was wrong thing really. I am disturbed more by the fact that recent history has been totally forgotten by the media, is not this in part a responsibility of the media? Pointing out facts.

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Clinton did act on it. Did you read the links I provided? No, he did not invade. The point is he supported regime change and had a working plan that was being implimented.

I really don't want to get into the bush was right/clinton was wrong thing really. I am disturbed more by the fact that recent history has been totally forgotten by the media, is not this in part a responsibility of the media? Pointing out facts.

It's already been pointed out by the media plus it's not comparable. Again, why point it out if it's meaningless? Clinton's plan has nothing to do with Bush's actions. It's false to claim that they're connected.

I supported regime change but I didn't support the war. Saying Bill supported regime change doesn't mean anything.

[Messiahtosh]

How can you have one without the other?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by bunge
It's already been pointed out by the media plus it's not comparable. Again, why point it out if it's meaningless? Clinton's plan has nothing to do with Bush's actions. It's false to claim that they're connected.

I supported regime change but I didn't support the war. Saying Bill supported regime change doesn't mean anything. Maybe you just don't see the nexus that I do. But hey thanks for being civil about it, anyway.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
How can you have one without the other? I am not sure who that was directed at...

[Gilsch]

Well, Naples claims he's not a Rep....is there another category like ultra-Rep or something? Neocon? Hmmm. Those were your best links? :no:

[jimmac]

Oh Nappy!:no:

[thegelding]

i guess i must have missed the war clinton started against iraq without UN approval, especially after stating that he would force a vote and then back tracked when he not only found out he would lose, but that he would lose by a majority vote...wait the last part was bush...so when was this war again?? how many died?? inspections seemed to actually get rid of the WMD, but we sure didn't want to listen to them...oh well...a clinton plan, a bush war...yeah i can see how those things get confused...

g

[Jubelum]

You mean we can't blame GWB for everything concerning Iraq? Regime change was a Clinton idea?

Say it isn't so! We need to rip GWB for that, so stuff it.
Ssshhhhhh! We DON'T want to burst any bubbles around here.

;)

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by Kickaha
So during a Dem presidency, we get right-wing-media-conspiracies, and during a Rep administration, the opposite.


I would love to see the evidence for a right-wing media conspiracy.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Well, Naples claims he's not a Rep....is there another category like ultra-Rep or something? Neocon? Hmmm. Those were your best links? :no: So what does that have to do with subject at hand?

If you must pigeon hole me, please do. But could you add something useful?

[thegelding]

how many US soldiers died in iraq during clinton's 8 years?

g

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by thegelding
how many US soldiers died in iraq during clinton's 8 years?

g Why must you argue the typical talking points, show some backbone. The idea is the media did not even touch these facts, as far as I can see.

Post some links to enlightyen me, if I am wrong or add something to the conversation, please don't turn this into another bash bush thread.

I think a discussion about the failures of our media is in order.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I was doing some research on the claim that the Iraq war was planned before bush entered office and it turns out to be true:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/13/101255.shtml
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/439/intervw.htm
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990610/1999061021.html

I am just curious why the mainstream media has not mentioned this? just another reason you have to question everything that Peater "the canadian" Jennings(abc), Dan Blabber(C-BS), or tom blowcaw(nbc) have to say as they have a reputation for leaving things out, or in legal terms, lieing by ommittion
<after thought>
as much as they are hated, think how in-the-dark we would be, both lib and conservative without drudge, limbaugh, and more recently, hannity

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by Jubelum
I would love to see the evidence for a right-wing media conspiracy.
Rush Limbaugh used to sell coffee mugs with that phrase on it.
And Hillary Clinton said so - 'nuff said.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Rush Limbaugh used to sell coffee mugs with that phrase on it.
And Hillary Clinton said so - 'nuff said. those mugs were a joke, makeing fun of hillary, get your (stuff) straight

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by a_greer
those mugs were a joke, makeing fun of hillary, get your (stuff) straight
And what I said was a joke - chill...

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I am analizing the fact that the left has accused the right, in particular the president, of planning regime change long before 9/11 and before GWB was elected.
Berger announced the active pursuit of regime change through the neoconservative Iraqi National Congress. They did little more than back the INC.

The Clinton admin did not plan to invade Iraq and was not a force behind the recent Iraq war. What they did was somewhat give in to neocon lobbying because the admin really had a shitty Iraq policy.

Like I said, newsmax is taking advantage of the fact that you were apparently living under a rock back in the late 90s when this stuff was front page news.

This really has to be the stupidest thread on Iraq ever posted in AO. At least all the 'Iraq WMD CONFIRMED' threads had a small shot of being at all relevant.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Berger announced the active pursuit of regime change through the neoconservative Iraqi National Congress. They did little more than back the INC.

The Clinton admin did not plan to invade Iraq and was not a force behind the recent Iraq war. What they did was somewhat give in to neocon lobbying because the admin really had a shitty Iraq policy.

Like I said, newsmax is taking advantage of the fact that you were apparently living under a rock back in the late 90s when this stuff was front page news.

This really has to be the stupidest thread on Iraq ever posted in AO. At least all the 'Iraq WMD CONFIRMED' threads had a small shot of being at all relevant. You can't help yourself can you?

You just have to post your opinion on this stupid thread. How smart does that make you?

Come on kid, shoo you bother me.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by bunge
A contingency plan is one thing, acting on it is another. There are probably plans (and have been for a long time) to attack North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Canada, Mexico and Guam. It's a fact of life.

Ousting Saddam at all costs wasn't a goal of the Clinton administration. That was Bush's true mistake.

Wrong. It was US Public Law...actually.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You can't help yourself can you?
I love how this line you repeat makes zero sense.

I'll make it real simple for you:

Clinton regime change policy != Bush admin Iraq war / pax americana.

In fact, maybe you missed all hundreds of major articles attacking clinton regime change policy during the lead up to the war. Hell, with this thread you are demonstrating that you've missed the most basic and high profile of policy issues in this whole conflict.

Here, I'll make it even simpler:

Clinton Iraq policy != Bush Iraq policy.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
I love how this line you repeat makes zero sense.

I'll make it real simple for you:

Clinton regime change policy != Bush admin Iraq war / pax americana.

In fact, maybe you missed all hundreds of major articles attacking clinton regime change policy during the lead up to the war. Hell, with this thread you are demonstrating that you've missed the most basic and high profile of policy issues in this whole conflict.

Here, I'll make it even simpler:

Clinton Iraq policy != Bush Iraq policy. Shoo, will ya.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It was US Public Law...actually.
Yet another one of your series of being dead wrong.

Clinton policy was not "Ousting Saddam at all costs," it was entirely the opposite: ousting saddam at little or no cost by simply backing the INC.

[giant]

It's really sad that there are some adults that don't know clinton had a regime change policy. That's on the same level as not knowing that bush's father used to be head of the CIA, VP and then president.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

not to mention the fact that your first link refers to 3 mainstream news outlets that reported it.

[NaplesX]

You both are mindless. This thread is about how the media has failed to counter the lies spread by certain parties by just bringing out some obvious facts.

As far as me not knowing about it, so what? I had just started paying attention to politics during that time.

What is your point?

I am talking now, there are people that are just now getting interested in this kind of stuff.

The media did not fail to bring up Bush's previous bouts with alcohol, that was well known to many people. History is relevent in almost any current affair.

Go thread crash somewhere else. Get a life.

[thegelding]

time for the big lock....perhaps we should read the guidelines again for posting and name calling...sigh

g

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

don't start a thread if you don't want it contested. did you expect everyone just to concur with you and applaud you on your astuteness?

as i mentioned, how can you state that "the media" has ignored it when your first link uses newsweek as a source.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
don't start a thread if you don't want it contested. did you expect everyone just to concur with you and applaud you on your astuteness?

as i mentioned, how can you state that "the media" has ignored it when your first link uses newsweek as a source. Hey, I stated clearly that I have not seen the media bring this up. I even asked for a correction if I was wrong.

Besides I do not need approval from you or anyone. I thought it was a valad discussion to have. If not, then I guess I was wrong. No need for anyone to post if it is just condecending idiotry. What is the point of that?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
don't start a thread if you don't want it contested. did you expect everyone just to concur with you and applaud you on your astuteness?

as i mentioned, how can you state that "the media" has ignored it when your first link uses newsweek as a source. Oh yeah, one newspaper does not equal the media.

[Moogs]

1) AFAICT Newsmax is a "GOP newswire" more than it is actual news.

2) Regardless of who came up with the idea, only one administration can be held responsible for actually attempting it without just cause. This one.

Ideas are one thing, actions another, and the timing of actions yet another.

Theres no way around it: we didn't have just cause for doing what we did, even though the outcome as far as Hussein goes was positive. Of course for most Americans the ends will always justify the means in a situation like this, because most are about as well-informed as a tree stump.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Moogs
1) AFAICT Newsmax is a "GOP newswire" more than it is actual news.

2) Regardless of who came up with the idea, only one administration can be held responsible for actually attempting it without just cause. This one.

Ideas are one thing, actions another, and the timing of actions yet another.

Theres no way around it: we didn't have just cause for doing what we did, even though the outcome as far as Hussein goes was positive. Of course for most Americans the ends will always justify the means in a situation like this, because most are about as well-informed as a tree stump. Good point for anther thread maybe.

Let me try this again:

1. The news media reported widely on accusations of a sinister plot to remove SH by the bush neo-cons.

2. At the same time they totally ignored the fact that a regime change policy was signed into law by clinton. He went as far as appointing a special representative for transition in Iraq, Frank Ricciardone.

It could be argued, that Bush is just following or furthering the Clintom policy/law.

My issue is with the media not mentioning these facts dispite the coalation with this current round of accusations. Get it?

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

what constitutes the media?

your first link quotes sources from wall street journal, washington times, and newsweek, am i missing something?

[Artman @_@]

You're all wrong...

Who first proposed a regime change?

Hint...

http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org/jest/card-paul_wolfowitz.jpg

All I got. Continue.

:smokey:

[pfflam]

The best thing about starting this thread is that it is based on an implied BLAME for a bad action.

"Bush did good but even so, it is all Clinton's fault . . so there!"


:no:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
The best thing about starting this thread is that it is based on an implied BLAME for a bad action.

"Bush did good but even so, it is all Clinton's fault . . so there!"


:no: You're wrong this is about media coverage and balance.

check out this link, it is very enlightening as far as the law itself.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

this law is meant clearly to facilitate the overthrow of iraq (presumably by northern forces that president bush sr. nearly did as well) from inside sources, or expatriate forces, maybe civil war.
nothing about invasion.

[giant]

OMG! Clinton had an Iraq Policy!!!! Why doesn't the mainstream media report this?!?!?!?!?!

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

clinton bombed the shit out of them on occasion as well, that went totally unreported, or maybe it was but i wasn't paying attention until now.

[Artman @_@]

ahem... (http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214)

:smokey:

[thegelding]

ok, did the media talk about the bush admin and regime change before bushie took us to war?? no, it is an issue because bushie had a plan, acted on it and with false information...and blaming others for that information is wrong...you go to war, to kill people in that country, your soldiers die in battles away from home and your intelligence had better be right...if not, you fall on your sword, the buck stops here etc etc add your selected quote here...

i must assume that napx is catholic, because he can't see the difference (and why the media made little of clinton's plan and is making more of bushie's actions) between thinking something and doing something...
(penthouse letter follows)
a couple of months ago a young woman at work asked me out for drinks, made it known that certain events would follow...i thought about it for a few moments (pretty woman, half my age, knows i'm married...it would be nice...i like drinks, i like sex)...but i say no...i'm happily married and don't need the ego boost (i'm egoriffic as it is)...but i thought about it...just recently i find she made a similar offer to another married man and he took her up on it (hospitals, and especially university hospital, are full of this...)...according to nappy there is no difference between this man and me...thoughts are thoughts, plans are plans, actions have consquences...

g

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
Exactly. It aims to provide support for the neoconservative's iraqi opposition group INC. This is not at all the same as invading Iraq.

[faust9]

It took 45 comments to this thread to point out Pualie first recommend regime change to Bush I. Hmm, seems like some people should look more deeply into facts rather than blindly blaming a guy who's been out of office for almost 4 years for a fictional event.

Just for you non belivers heres a link or two you Clinton Bashers should gaze upon and then try and pound the "Clinton is the Unholy One" drums. I didn't like Clinton--in fact, I voted against him twice, but blame needs to be shifted to where it belongs. Squarely at the shrubs door step. End of argument!!!


This is a liberal source, but well vetted none the less. Look to the right of the screen for regime change info.
http://www.ceip.org/files/Iraq/index.htm#regime_change

More on PAx Americana:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Letter signed and sent to Clinto by current administration officials demanding regime change:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld-openletter.htm

Statements by Paul O'Neill
http://www.sundayherald.com/39221

Seems like more than just Clinton were adressing the idea of regime change:

Speaking on behalf of the bill in the Senate, Trent Lott said:

"The United States has many means at its disposal to support the liberation of Iraq. At the height of the Cold War, we supported freedom fighters In Asia, Africa and Latin America willing to fight and die for a democratic future. We can and should do the same now in Iraq.

"The Clinton administration regularly calls for bipartisanship in foreign policy. I support them when I can. Today, we see a clear example of a policy that has the broadest possible bi-partisan support. I know the Administration understands the depth of our feeling on this issue. I think they are beginning to understand the strategic argument in favor of moving beyond containment to a policy of 'rollback'. Containment is not sustainable. Pressure to lift sanctions on Iraq is increasing--despite Iraq's seven years of refusal to comply with the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire. Our interests in the Middle East cannot be protected with Saddam Hussein in power. Our legislation provides a roadmap to achieve our objective.

"This year, Congress has already provided $5 million to support the Iraqi political opposition. We provided $5 million to establish Radio Free Iraq. We will provide additional resources for political support in the FY 1999 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, including $3 million for the Iraqi National Congress.

"Enactment of this bill will go farther. It requires the President to designate at least one Iraqi opposition group to receive U.S. military assistance. It defines eligibility criteria such a group or groups must meet. Many of us have ideas on how the designation process should work. I have repeatedly stated that the Iraqi National Congress has been effective in the past and can be effective in the future. They represent the broadest possible base of the opposition. There are other groups that are currently active inside Iraq: the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The State Department seems to believe there are more than 70 opposition groups, many of which do not meet the criteria in H.R. 4655. Many barely even exist or have no political base. They should not be considered for support. We should also be very careful about considering designation of groups which do not share our values or which are simply creations of external forces or exile politics, such as the Iraqi Communist Party or the Iraqi National Accord.

"This is an important step. Observers should not misunderstand the Senate's action. Even though this legislation will pass without controversy on an unanimous voice vote, it is a major step forward in the final conclusion of the Persian Gulf war. In 1991, we and our allies shed blood to liberate Kuwait. Today, we are empowering Iraqis to liberate their own country."

I can go on all day with this. Its public information, and relatively easy to find. Hell, William Kristol of the weekly standard has said much of what's above himself for all you truely conservative zealots.

In the end, Clinton has been out of office for almost four years, Clinton did not invade Iraq, he invaded the Baltics. Clinton is not responsible for invading Iraq, the shrub is. Clinton may have mulled and even formulated a plan to invade Iraq, but he wasn't the first, and most importantly he didn't act on it. IT WAS ONLY A PLAN FOR GOD'S SAKE. Every time I buy a lottery ticket I plan on winning a million bucks. Its just a plan. Get over Clinton people. He will never reak voodoo on you again except during his six figure speeches. Address the problems at hand and stop living in Clinton administration.

[giant]

Originally posted by faust9
Clinton may have mulled and even formulated a plan to invade Iraq, but he wasn't the first, and most importantly he didn't act on it.
But this is where all the confusion is.

Naples is confusing 'support of the neocon's INC' with 'invasion by the US.'

They are two very different things.

But what little Clinton did was prompted by the neocons.

[Artman @_@]

Originally posted by thegelding
ok, did the media talk about the bush admin and regime change before bushie took us to war??
g

Um. Sorta. How about Feb. 20th 2003? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/)

Depends on who you listen or read...NEWZ R US? (ABCNBCFOXMSNBC) or real investigative journalism. Click the link. You can even watch the whole damn report online.

I'll state it again, Wolfowitz is the brainchild behind all this. And I believe he (and others like Chenney) had the idea in his head long before Gulf War I.

:smokey:

[faust9]

Originally posted by giant
But this is where all the confusion is.

Naples is confusing 'support of the neocon's INC' with 'invasion by the US.'

They are two very different things.

But what little Clinton did was prompted by the neocons.

I know, it just bugs me when the shrubs gets into office running on the images as a standup kinda guy, and then turns he's not. Clinton started the recession, It's not my fault I got bad intelligence, It's not my fault I've made rosey Jobs figure prediction since I got into office. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. Its never their fault though they said they would stand when they where running in 2000.

I can't say this enough: GET OVER CLINTON PEOPLE. I should make that my sig now shouldn't I?

[Artman @_@]

Sigh... (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html)

:smokey:

[giant]

Vote Bush 2004: 'It's not my fault'

Anybody got a audio file of the old Mac OS error sound?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by giant
It's really sad that there are some adults that don't know clinton had a regime change policy. That's on the same level as not knowing that bush's father used to be head of the CIA, VP and then president.


From the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE

(A) 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 such organizations.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Originally posted by giant
It's really sad that there are some adults that don't know clinton had a regime change policy. That's on the same level as not knowing that bush's father used to be head of the CIA, VP and then president.
From the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

quote:2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE

(A) 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 such organizations.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm
Not only does the post of mine that you quoted have absolultely nothing to do with what you posted, but there is nothing remotely resembling an authorization for invasion there. The *expressed* goal (as in it actually explicitly states it) was to support 'iraqi opposition groups' (the neoconservative INC) in their efforts to overthrow Saddam, and the INC never even got past the initial stage of getting political support.

This is about as far from an invasion while still looking like he was doing something as clinton could get.

Funny how only a few months ago the big criticism of clinton was that he didn't really have a real Iraq policy (a legit criticism), but now that you guys are in the bottom of the outhouse you are trying to turn it around 180 degrees.

[Artman @_@]

Originally posted by giant
Vote Bush 2004: 'It's not my fault'

Anybody got a audio file of the old Mac OS error sound?

Vote Wolfowitz 2004: "I get no credit!"

Done. Seems as usual blind, deaf and dumb abounds...

:smokey:

[faust9]

Originally posted by SDW2001
From the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998



http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Tisk, Tisk. Out of context:

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE

(A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.

(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE

(A) 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 such organizations.

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

read--AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.

(a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

(b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

(c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--

(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and

(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.

(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.


read--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

(c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--

(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and

(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.


We did not do this. We did not meet these criteria. C.1? We involved the Kurds but that was it thus we did not "include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime"

We did not enter into the current fiasco meeting the criteria of this bill. That is why El shrub-o had to ask congress for permission http://www.startribune.com/stories/784/3201538.html

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by thegelding
ok, did the media talk about the bush admin and regime change before bushie took us to war?? no, it is an issue because bushie had a plan, acted on it and with false information...and blaming others for that information is wrong...you go to war, to kill people in that country, your soldiers die in battles away from home and your intelligence had better be right...if not, you fall on your sword, the buck stops here etc etc add your selected quote here...

i must assume that napx is catholic, because he can't see the difference (and why the media made little of clinton's plan and is making more of bushie's actions) between thinking something and doing something...
(penthouse letter follows)
a couple of months ago a young woman at work asked me out for drinks, made it known that certain events would follow...i thought about it for a few moments (pretty woman, half my age, knows i'm married...it would be nice...i like drinks, i like sex)...but i say no...i'm happily married and don't need the ego boost (i'm egoriffic as it is)...but i thought about it...just recently i find she made a similar offer to another married man and he took her up on it (hospitals, and especially university hospital, are full of this...)...according to nappy there is no difference between this man and me...thoughts are thoughts, plans are plans, actions have consquences...

g I am not catholic, you maroon. Even if I was that is a lame attempt.

The reasoning and end results are virtually identical between bushie's and slick willie's plans. The difference is the going to war to acheive it. I would say there is a common thread there.

But like I said, I AM NOT CONDONING OR CONDEMNING POLICY OF EITHER PRESIDENT. <---- Read last sentence again if you have to. I am asking why would not a respectable news agency bring up these facts when silly accusations about a secret bush plot to invade Iraq are leveled.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I am asking why would not a respectable news agency bring up these facts when silly accusations about a secret bush plot to invade Iraq are leveled.
Because there is nothing new about the idea of 'regime change' and clinton's support of the neoconservative INC != a US invasion of Iraq as was planned and executed by the Bush admin. Furthermore, the idea of regime change as employed by clinton is a neocon idea, so much so that the iraqi opposition group supported by clinton was a directly neoconservative one.

But the big reason there weren't headline articles about clinton's iraq policy (though it sure was often mentioned) was because it's 7 year old news, just like monica.

You might as well complain that there aren't any headlines about man walking on the moon in 69.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!

[Gilsch]

:lol: Naples. going out of your way desperately trying to find ties or common ground on unrelated issues and then coming out and saying "but....but..... I wasn't really trying to do that , I'm not a Rep and don't condone it from either side; is making you look pretty bad. Read Artman's link.

SDW: your last post...I'm still waiting for the second part. There is a second part right? Right? Otherwise, quite a sttttrrreeettttttcccchhhhh.

Artman: interesting link. I have known about the "crazies", as Wolf and Perle, Abrams etc were known within the Bush Sr. admin. for a while, but that's a pretty informative link. By the way, you a chain smoker? :D

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gilsch
:lol: Naples. going out of your way desperately trying to find ties or common ground on unrelated issues and then coming out and saying "but....but..... I wasn't really trying to do that , I'm not a Rep and don't condone it from either side; is making you look pretty bad.

SDW: your last post...I'm still waiting for the second part. There is a second part right? Right? Otherwise, quite a sttttrrreeettttttcccchhhhh.

Artman: interesting link. I have known about the "crazies", as Wolf and Perle, Abrams etc were known within the Bush Sr. admin. for a while, but that's a pretty informative link. By the way, you a chain smoker? :D I must have touched a nerve or something to get all this flack from you guys.

Hey, I readily accept I could be wrong on this one, but thus far all I hear is partsan talking points. Noone has really touched on the issue about the media. Granted giant in his usual condecending way has dismissed the whole thing calling it old news. And as I have often told him, just because he says so, is not enough reason for me.

I did not attack clinton, so I am quite surprised at the reaction of you guys. If I "attacked" anyone it was the media.

Crazy.

Things that make you go Hmm. I guess.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I did not attack clinton, so I am quite surprised at the reaction of you guys. If I "attacked" anyone it was the media.



and you were wrong about that, "the media" did report it, your links are proof of that, you either just missed it or weren't paying attention.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
and you were wrong about that, "the media" did report it, your links are proof of that, you either just missed it or weren't paying attention. See this is where you are wrong, I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.

Please, if I am missing it show me where.

[faust9]

Many people have said this already but the media isn't adressing your concerns because:

1 ) Clinton was the last president and has been out of office for over 3 years.
2 ) Clinton had a plan but didn't act on it.
3 ) Clinton didn't have 10 staff members who signed an open letter to GHWB outlining the Iraq invasion.
4 ) Clinton Did not invade Iraq using shakey justifications.
5 ) Clinton didn't have staff members from a previous administration who drafted a march to Baghdad proposal.
6 ) Clinton formulated his plan many years ago as a CONTENGENCIE.
7 ) Clint may or may not have had a plan to invade Iraq at the beginning of his administration, Bush did.
8 ) Clinton wasn't attacked on his home soil by group A not linked to Iraq but still decided to invade Iraq.
9 ) Clinton was elected by the majority of votes cast
10) Clinton did other stupid things that garnered the medias eye.

Most if not all of this has been said already in this thread. The most important reason the media is criticising IMO Bush is because Clinton had a contengencie plan while Bush had A plan to invade Iraq. Clinton didn't warp intelligence to invade. Bush did. That is why no media coverage on a pre-existing plan during the Clinton admin.

Now as far as this not being Clinton bashing, personally I say bash away, but don't mask it otherwise and then thry to justify it as such. This thread could have said "Why are we not Criticising Reagan for his TIES to SH?", Or "Why no meida coverage about GHWB's inability to take Baghdad?" Or "Why no media coverage because Jimmy Carter allowed SH into power?"

You chose Clinton. Specifically, because people have a weird fascination with slick willie for some unknown reason. Personally, if I were gonna ask questions I'd point my fat fingers at Reagan. Why isn't the media addressing Reagans involvement? Damnit I have to know. I have to know NOW.

Why is Reagan a mushroom? Because like Clinton it's old news, and unrelated to the real issue of why ARE WE IN IRAQ TODAY? Why is it that a CURRENT self-styled "war time president" diverted time and attention from a real threat to a pseudo threat (A reason for media coverage). Why are the reasons given for the invasion falling left and right? Why did the administration have a plan AND ACT ON IT using half-truths to justify action? That is why Slick Willie, like Teflon Ron, is a mushroom (in the dark out of eyesight).

War is why the shrub gets the scutany. I can't say it anymore plainly than that. Hope this clearified things.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
Many people have said this already but the media isn't adressing your concerns because:

1 ) Clinton was the last president and has been out of office for over 3 years.
2 ) Clinton had a plan but didn't act on it.
3 ) Clinton didn't have 10 staff members who signed an open letter to GHWB outlining the Iraq invasion.
4 ) Clinton Did not invade Iraq using shakey justifications.
5 ) Clinton didn't have staff members from a previous administration who drafted a march to Baghdad proposal.
6 ) Clinton formulated his plan many years ago as a CONTENGENCIE.
7 ) Clint may or may not have had a plan to invade Iraq at the beginning of his administration, Bush did.
8 ) Clinton wasn't attacked on his home soil by group A not linked to Iraq but still decided to invade Iraq.
9 ) Clinton was elected by the majority of votes cast
10) Clinton did other stupid things that garnered the medias eye.

Most if not all of this has been said already in this thread. The most important reason the media is criticising IMO Bush is because Clinton had a contengencie plan while Bush had A to invade Iraq. Clinton didn't warp intelligence to invade. Bush did. That is why no media coverage on a pre-existing plan during the Clinton admin.

Now as far as this not being Clinton bashing, personally I say bash away, but do mask it otherwise. This thread could have said "Why are we not Criticising Reagan for his TIES to SH?", Or "Why no meida coverage about GHWB's inability to take Baghdad?" Or "Why no media coverage because Jimmy Carter allowed SH into power?"

You chose Clinton. Specifically, because people have a weird fascination with slick willie for some unknown reason. Personally, if I were gonna ask questions I'd point my fat fingers at Reagan. Why isn't the media addressing Reagans involvement? Damnit I have to know. I have to know NOW.

Why is Reagan a mushroom? Because like Clinton it's old news, and unrelated to the real issue of why ARE WE IN IRAQ TODAY? Why is it that a CURRENT self-styled "war time president" diverted time and attention from a real threat to a pseudo threat (A reason for media coverage). Why are the reasons given for the invasion falling left and right? Why did the administration have a plan AND ACT ON IT using half-truths to justify action? That is why Slick Willie, like Teflon Ron, is a mushroom (in the dark out of eyesight).

War is why the shrub gets the scutany. I can't say it anymore plainly than that. Hope this clearified things. Yeah it clears it up for me...

You obviously know everything, including why I started this thread and my motives, not to mention GWB's, Bush Jr. and Sr.'s , Reagan's and of course Carter's mkotives for what they did.

Tell me, who will win the superbowl next year?

[NaplesX]

two words for you guys...

Anger Management.

[faust9]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Yeah it clears it up for me...

You obviously know everything, including why I started this thread and my motives, not to mention GWB's, Bush Jr. and Sr.'s , Reagan's and of course Carter's.

Tell me, who will win the super-bowl next year?

That's awesome man. You asked a rhetorical question as to why no Clinton bashing (your your use of verbiage aside), and you refuse to accept the answers given. Answers 1-10 plus a hundred other are exactly the answers to:

I was doing some research on the claim that the Iraq war was planned before bush entered office and it turns out to be true:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...13/101255.shtml
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/439/intervw.htm
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dai...1999061021.html

I am just curious why the mainstream media has not mentioned this

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
two words for you guys...

Anger Management.

One word for you......


Reality.;)

[thegelding]

Originally posted by NaplesX
two words for you guys...

Anger Management.

ha, from the man who has called people, "spineless", "mindless", "maroon" etc in this thread...i worst i did was suggest you might be catholic...

time to re-fill the prozac there nappy boy


g

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
That's awesome man. You asked a rhetorical question as to why no Clinton bashing (your your use of verbiage aside), and you refuse to accept the answers given. Answers 1-10 plus a hundred other are exactly the answers to: I like the way you twist what I say just so you can argue. I asked why the media did not mention it when reporting claims of secret bush plan.

Some of the reasons you gave could be reasonable, but when you start claiming you know exactly why I started this thread you discredit yourself. You chose to do that, not me.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Naples. The guy could not possibly have answered you any better. It was about the fullest rebuttal it was possible to make to the original premise of the thread you started.

If you think he's wrong tell him why. Don't get all snippy when the unstoppable force of your argument and the unimpeachably solid facts you're counting on are called into question.

Lame.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I like the way you twist what I say just so you can argue. I asked why the media did not mention it when reporting claims of secret bush plan.

Some of the reasons you gave could be reasonable, but when you start claiming you know exactly why I started this thread you discredit yourself. You chose to do that, not me.

JUST
ANSWER
THE
MAN'S
POST.

Damn.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
See this is where you are wrong, I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.

Please, if I am missing it show me where.

jesus! it was reported.....it's right there in your links.....you're just pissed because you think it should be headlines like it's some smoking gun against president clinton when it's clearly not....it's history, not news.

besides all that president clinton has been fairly supportive of president bush with regards to the war.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Naples. The guy could not possibly have answered you any better. It was about the fullest rebuttal it was possible to make to the original premise of the thread you started.

If you think he's wrong tell him why. Don't get all snippy when the unstoppable force of your argument and the unimpeachably solid facts you're counting on are called into question.

Lame. I started this thread based on some info I ran across. I then expanded so as not to project an anti-clinton attitude. I then re-clarify my point. I don't know, I think I did it again. Point is noone seems to want to talk about that, which is ok, but now it is turning into a "your obviously this or that" and another bash bush/defend Clinton thread.

I am sorry, but when people start telling me what I do and don't know or what my motives are, I dismiss them, as I expect them to do with me if I do the same.

I simply am not comparing actions by the two presidencies, just the fact that they had/have similar plans and when the media mentions the so called "secret bush plan" they have, by my estimation, not mentioned clintons plan.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
jesus! it was reported.....it's right there in your links.....you're just pissed because you think it should be headlines like it's some smoking gun against president clinton when it's clearly not....it's history, not news.

besides all that president clinton has been fairly supportive of president bush with regards to the war. You need a time out or something, man, breeth. I am not attackingt Clinton, jeez.

You guys are way too touchy, I mean you can't seem to grasp what I am pointing out here, and it has nothing to do with who is right or wrong politically.

[Fellowship]

If this thread is to remain open the personal jabbing needs to stop all the way round. This seems to be a thread where the horse is being beaten to death as it were. There are those on one side of the issue and those on the other. After a while there is nothing to add to the discussion and I am not so sure that this point in time has not already been met and exceeded. Proceed without personal immaturity or do not proceed.

Thanks,
Fellowship

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by thegelding
ha, from the man who has called people, "spineless", "mindless", "maroon" etc in this thread...i worst i did was suggest you might be catholic...

time to re-fill the prozac there nappy boy


g I did assert the midless thing.

I told someone to "show some backbone", I did not call him spoineless.

Maroon? Come on that was a bugs bunny word, were you offended by that?

Calling certainb people Catholic could be enough to start a fued. Haha. But it was a lame attempt to marginalize me.

[NaplesX]

double post

weird

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I started this thread based on some info I ran across. I then expanded so as not to project an anti-clinton attitude. I then re-clarify my point. I don't know, I think I did it again. Point is noone seems to want to talk about that, which is ok, but now it is turning into a "your obviously this or that" and another bash bush/defend Clinton thread.

I am sorry, but when people start telling me what I do and don't know or what my motives are, I dismiss them, as I expect them to do with me if I do the same.

I simply am not comparing actions by the two presidencies, just the fact that they had/have similar plans and when the media mentions the so called "secret bush plan" they have, by my estimation, not mentioned clintons plan.

That's right, and the man answered your post by refuting the comparison between Clinton's and Bush's plan. Are you going to answer his post or not?

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You need a time out or something, man, breeth. I am not attackingt Clinton, jeez.

You guys are way too touchy, I mean you can't seem to grasp what I am pointing out here, and it has nothing to do with who is right or wrong politically.

i have never once accused you of attacking clinton, you say your problem is with the media, i say the media has reported it, it's referenced to in your links. you have yet to address my argument.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I simply am not comparing actions by the two presidencies, just the fact that they had/have similar plans and when the media mentions the so called "secret bush plan" they have, by my estimation, not mentioned clintons plan.
Because the two are not comparable.

One was for backing of the neocon INC, while the other was for a full-scale US-led war.

As for not reporting on clinton:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004Jan10?language=printer

It's right there! :wow:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i have never once accused you of attacking clinton, you say your problem is with the media, i say the media has reported it, it's referenced to in your links. you have yet to address my argument. Ok.

Correct me if I am wrong, the media did cover it, breafly and separately from the "underground secret Bush Iraq preplan" accusations. My contension is that they overzealously covered the it while conveniantly leaving out the fact that Clinton had one also, not to mention Bush 1, Reagan, and possibly Carter, as brought out.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Correct me if I am wrong, the media did cover it, breafly and separately from the "underground secret Bush Iraq preplan" accusations. My contension it that they overzealously covered the it while conveniantly leaving out the fact that Clinton had one also, not to mention Bush 1, Reagan, and possibly Carter, as brought out.
WRONG. And I am correcting you.

And providing support to the INC is extremely different than planning and executing an all-out, US-led invasion.

[dviant]

I got tired of reading the back n forthness of the majority of this thread, so pardon me if I'm on the wrong track, but thought this article might have some relevance...

THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

Damn Hawkish presidents! :P

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2873

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok.

Correct me if I am wrong, the media did cover it, briefly and separately from the "underground secret Bush Iraq preplan" accusations. My contention is that they overzealously covered the it while conveniently leaving out the fact that Clinton had one also, not to mention Bush 1, Reagan, and possibly Carter, as brought out.

clinton's plan wasn't done in secrect, and for that matter i don't think what president bush did was all that wrong, (but they've been overzealously secretive on any pre 9/11 plans and contingencies) i read the book that the charges sprang from and i'm not sure that an invasion was ever planned at that time, (it wasn't made clear in the book, perhaps it was on the authors site devoted to o'neill's papers and notes) it merely may have been an extension of what president bush (sr) and president clinton both supported at one time....the aiding and abetting of an overthrow. president bush sr. changed his mind because he thought (according to his memoirs) that iraq was just a big mess waiting to happen and pulled any american involvement at the last minute.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Because the two are not comparable.

One was for backing of the neocon INC, while the other was for a full-scale US-led war.

As for not reporting on clinton:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004Jan10?language=printer

It's right there! :wow:

Thank you for adding something useful. I mean that.

"However, other administration officials did not deny that contingency plans were made for a post-Hussein Iraq, and pointed out that "regime change" had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of the Iraqi president was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary."

Is the only place in the article that they mention it, but only as a contingency plan. It actually was a policy that was being implimented by The Cinton admin. But yeah it's an example of what I asked for.

Thanks.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
But yeah it's an example of what I asked for.
Seems to me you were doing a little more than just asking:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.

I never saw it. I had to do some digging to find this info. So I can only assume that it was passed over by the big media. I ask why?
...

Full discloser would dictate that you as a reporter would say something like: "Charlie Rangel asserts that 'the Iraq war was planned in Texas and implemented by this crooked presidency' but our researchers here at CNN/CBS/ABC found there was a plan that was public domain, implimented by the Clinton administration to facilitate an internal coup to topple Saddam Husain. However we found no such record attached GWB before his election."
Let me make it clear that my analisis is really focused on the media not at least mentioning this.
I am disturbed more by the fact that recent history has been totally forgotten by the media, is not this in part a responsibility of the media? Pointing out facts.
and on and on.

This from the Boston Globe article:

Beginning in the Clinton administration, official US policy called for "regime change" in Iraq, which had flouted United Nations resolutions put in place after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration cast its campaign against Hussein as part of the war on terror.

This from the NYT article:

Since the Clinton administration, the official position of the United States, backed by bipartisan votes in Congress, has been to call for "regime change" in Iraq. Even before taking office, Mr. Bush had spoken to exiled Iraqi opponents of Mr. Hussein about his desire to drive the Iraqi leader from power.

And this from the washinton post article:

However, other administration officials did not deny that contingency plans were made for a post-Hussein Iraq, and pointed out that "regime change" had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of the Iraqi president was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary.

So basically, you jumped to a conclusion and didn't even bother to look to see if that major stories actually did include info on Clinton Iraq policy. Why isn't it in the headlines? Because it was 7 year old info.

It's good to learn from mistakes.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Seems to me you were doing a little more than just asking:




and on and on.

This from the Boston Globe article:

Beginning in the Clinton administration, official US policy called for "regime change" in Iraq, which had flouted United Nations resolutions put in place after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration cast its campaign against Hussein as part of the war on terror.

This from the NYT article:

Since the Clinton administration, the official position of the United States, backed by bipartisan votes in Congress, has been to call for "regime change" in Iraq. Even before taking office, Mr. Bush had spoken to exiled Iraqi opponents of Mr. Hussein about his desire to drive the Iraqi leader from power.

And this from the washinton post article:

However, other administration officials did not deny that contingency plans were made for a post-Hussein Iraq, and pointed out that "regime change" had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of the Iraqi president was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary.

So basically, you jumped to a conclusion and didn't even bother to look to see if that major stories actually did include info on Clinton Iraq policy. Why isn't it in the headlines? Because it was 7 year old info.

It's good to learn from mistakes. No, I researched it (over the last day or so) and could not find what I was looking for, and posted my findings.

The sad thing obout this is it took how many posts for someone to post meaningful information. To be honest I am pleasantly surprized it was you. A whole lot of foolishness and unnecisary name calling could have been avoided with a smart stroke of the keyboard. I have told you that I am here to learn and discuss, so yes I learned something.

I do hope that you and everyone reading this has learned something also, that we are all just wasting everyones time, when we come with the purpose to argue and spout rhetoric. Just read over this thread if you want a perfect illustration of this.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
. . . I dismiss them, as I expect them to do with me if I do the same.
Like you dimissed my post. . . . and yet, whether you want to see it or not, the logic implied in your first post is this:
"I support GWBush and the iraq war
but it is a BLAMEworthy affair entirely
and so
I blame Clinton"

which means that, since you can, and do, dislike Clinton it is ok to feel that the war is something that is blameworthy . . . that's half right . . . it is a blameworthy event that happened but CLinton is not to blame.

and remember, as I always say: when you Blame you Be Lame!

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
A whole lot of foolishness and unnecisary name calling could have been avoided with a smart stroke of the keyboard.
Or you could have just not lashed out at everyone who criticized your wild conspiracy accusations.
I have told you that I am here to learn and discuss, so yes I learned something.
Really?
Originally posted by NaplesX
You both are mindless. This thread is about how the media has failed to counter the lies spread by certain parties by just bringing out some obvious facts...Go thread crash somewhere else. Get a life.
Originally posted by NaplesX
1. The news media reported widely on accusations of a sinister plot to remove SH by the bush neo-cons.

2. At the same time they totally ignored the fact that a regime change policy was signed into law by clinton.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
and you were wrong about that, "the media" did report it, your links are proof of that, you either just missed it or weren't paying attention.
See this is where you are wrong, I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.
Anyway, the points have all been made. Nice doing business with you.

-

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
Like you dimissed my post. . . . and yet, whether you want to see it or not, the logic implied in your first post is this:
"I support GWBush and the iraq war
but it is a BLAMEworthy affair entirely
and so
I blame Clinton"

which means that, since you can, and do, dislike Clinton it is ok to feel that the war is something that is blameworthy . . . that's half right . . . it is a blameworthy event that happened but CLinton is not to blame.

and remember, as I always say: when you Blame you Be Lame! I repeated many times I was not interested in blaming anyone policy wise. I never stated Clinton was to blame. I dismissed you then as well as now because you seem to think you posess some super human ability to read my mind or intentions. I could care less about clinton so get over yourself.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Or you could have just not lashed out at everyone who criticized your wild conspiracy accusations.

Really?



See this is where you are wrong, I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.
Anyway, the points have all been made. Nice doing business with you.

- [/QUOTE] God you are full of yourself. That is all I can say to that whole thing.

Um, let me ask you this. Why did you not just quote those articles from the beginning? I mean, if you knew what they said why not just get it out there and let a thread die?

Were you just in this to win? And if so, what did you win?

You did prove that the media did at least mention the corrolation between Bush plan and the Clinton plan. This in turn proves that I am not the only one that thinks that it at least deserves a mention when bringing up some conspiracy against bush as far as this secret plan thing goes.

I think it is more like a draw.

You're welcome and same to you.

[jimmac]

Wow Nappy are you still on this?:no:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Or you could have just not lashed out at everyone who criticized your wild conspiracy accusations.

Really?



See this is where you are wrong, I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.
Anyway, the points have all been made. Nice doing business with you.

- [/QUOTE] I just wanted to point out that despite the info that you so readily dismissed as ancient history, those media outlets felt it was worthy of mention, as I suggested.

[giant]

Originally posted by jimmac
Wow Nappy are you still on this?:no:
Maybe he needs a hug.

[Artman @_@]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Artman: interesting link. I have known about the "crazies", as Wolf and Perle, Abrams etc were known within the Bush Sr. admin. for a while, but that's a pretty informative link. By the way, you a chain smoker? :D

Smoke like crazy when online...here even more. Thanks for the props to the link. I haven't continued reading the posts after yours but sincerely hope other DO watch or read that report. It changed my whole view as to the reasons we are doing what we are doing in the Middle East.

Again...hell, just a theory but...here goes...Dubya is a stooge. A puppet guided by these men (Chenney, Rumsfeld, "Wolfie", Perle, etc.) to carry out an agenda that has been in the making since the Reagan administration. These men hold a HUGE amount of influence and power (Dubya too...but that source of power is from Daddy Bush). Enough to persuade Clinton to act on them (he balked...UN imposed more sanctions).

Wake up you sheep out there...wake up.

:smokey:

[Artman @_@]

Jan. 26, 1998

Hawks Send Open Letter to Clinton

A group of neo-conservatives, who have formed The Project for a New American Century, ...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

...argue for a much stronger U.S. global leadership exercised through "military strength and moral clarity." In an open letter to Clinton, the group warns that the policy of containing Iraq is "dangerously inadequate." They write:

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

The letter's signatories include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and other current members of George W. Bush's administration, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton.

Summer-Fall 1998

Saddam Blocks Weapons Inspectors

In early August, Saddam suspends cooperation with weapons inspectors and on Oct. 31 shuts down all inspections. The inspectors say they have evidence that Saddam had created thousands of tons of chemical and biological agents and that he is working on a nuclear device.

In November, Clinton -- in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal -- orders a bombing campaign against Iraq, but calls it off at the last minute when U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan works out a deal in which Iraq promises to unconditionally cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Within days of the inspectors' return, however, Iraq returns to intimidation and withholding information.

Dec. 16-19, 1998

Operation Desert Fox

U.S. and British military forces launch a four-day air and cruise missile campaign against approximately 100 key Iraqi military targets to punish Saddam for defying U.N. weapons inspections.

On Dec. 16, the day the bombing begins, the U.N. withdraws all weapons inspectors.

There. All that Clinton did. On a silver platter for the rest of you...others have stated the obvious.

:smokey: [i]cough!

[chu_bakka]

And no one in the administration ever said imminent threat... hehe

ok Rummy.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

[thegelding]

more rummy:

linkey (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=7&u=/nm/iraq_retaliation_dc)

no wonder bush has put a "choke" hold on rummy lately and told him not to talk to the press...

g

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
And no one in the administration ever said imminent threat... hehe

ok Rummy.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Heavens above, that's brilliant. Caught lying. Watch that bastard squirm. Brilliant, I say.

[chu_bakka]

Be sure to watch 60 minutes tomorrow night.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_14.html#002728