Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
......very interesting......





Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House, attacked by critics for a now-retracted line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa in President Bush's State of the Union address, has gotten some surprising support from former President Bill Clinton.



"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,'" Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.



"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. You can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now."



Former President Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.



"At the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what [Saddam] had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes, and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it.



"But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"



Clinton also told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."



«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    objra10objra10 Posts: 679member
    funny, none of you liberal wackos have a problem with this? Your great leader admits he blew it and that Bush was right..... hmmmmmm
  • Reply 2 of 40
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    funny, none of you liberal wackos have a problem with this? Your great leader admits he blew it and that Bush was right..... hmmmmmm



    I thought federal prosecuters had to be mature. Guess not.
  • Reply 3 of 40
    thttht Posts: 4,508member
    Clinton has been very supportive of Bush on Iraq. That he is forgiving of Bush's propoganda is not much of a surprise. He is at least politically a very forgiving person.



    Actually, liberals would have supported the action in Iraq much more if Bush didn't lie and fearmonger has way into this action. Humanitarian intervention and the neocon agenda is something progressive ideology should favor. It should have been win-win politics for Bush, but as is common in politics, he treated the citizenry like they are sheep with the propoganda campaign to get this started. Conservatives should also be very troubled about with Bush did. Does not Bush think conservatives can handle the truth?



    As for Clinton, would he say that the presence of biological and chemical weapons warrants an invasion and overthrow of the Hussein government? No, I wouldn't think so. Biological and chemical weapons are deterrent and terror style weapons. They do not inflict a lot of damage but carry a psychological effect over a populace. Against the foreign body that is the USA, they are harmless in any sort of state sponsored action. I would say that the use of them, bio and chem weapons, is a technological progression of warfare in Southwest Asia. Regular munitions are much more effective in production, cost, and damage, and I think these countries are coming to realize that. So these weapons will gradually go away.
  • Reply 4 of 40
    this is no revelation, he's always supported the administration regarding iraq. obviously for political reasons he's not standing on the sidelines waving pom-pons.

    i think i read somewhere that he was also a big supporter of secretary rumsfeld with regard to the roll the of the military and the way secretary rumsfeld wants it structured.
  • Reply 5 of 40
    thttht Posts: 4,508member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    i think i read somewhere that he was also a big supporter of secretary rumsfeld with regard to the roll the of the military and the way secretary rumsfeld wants it structured.



    Rumsfeld's ideas for state-of-the-art warfare is correct. It was, is and will always be about speed, speed and more speed. The army needs to get faster. He likes high tech toys a little too much. Eg, NMD (ballistic) is a vast waste of resources. Rail guns and lasers based-defenses I could see, but ballistic phase missile-to-missile defenses is a waste of money, let alone the fact that there really isn't an enemy with ICBMs anymore. One hopes that he also understands air support for mobile infantry too, but probably not since nothing seems to be replacing the A-10.



    Occupations and nation building on the other hand doesn't seem to enter the thinking of the GWB administration, outside of maybe political strategy. If the US is to do this properly, they may have to sink a trillion dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan over the next 10 years, and nobody seems to be prepared to do that.
  • Reply 6 of 40
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    funny, none of you liberal wackos have a problem with this? Your great leader admits he blew it and that Bush was right..... hmmmmmm



    Curious, i used to think that the political debate was lame in France, and i discovered that it may be the same elsewhere.
  • Reply 7 of 40
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    funny, none of you liberal wackos have a problem with this? Your great leader admits he blew it and that Bush was right..... hmmmmmm



    You added no insight of your own in your initial posting. You waited a little more than 30 minutes before your second post. You seem to be itching for a fight yet have provided no content for one. Spare us the guess work and give some reason why this should be discussed at all...
  • Reply 8 of 40
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    THT:



    Quote:

    As for Clinton, would he say that the presence of biological and chemical weapons warrants an invasion and overthrow of the Hussein government? No, I wouldn't think so.



    I disagree. Clinton made his desire to see Hussein gone clear and regime change became PotUS stance ~1998. That doesn't mean invasion, of course, but throw in 9/11 and who knows.
  • Reply 9 of 40
    objra10objra10 Posts: 679member
    Why should it be discussed? hmmm perhaps because every democrat and liberal that can get an audience has been slamming the president for 16 perfectly accurate words he used in the State of the Union, and here comes the leader of the Democratic Party supporting the President on this matter.



    I find it hard to believe that those of you who hate Bush so much (and America for that matter) can reconcile this with your image of Clinton-as-God.
  • Reply 10 of 40
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    ...because every democrat and liberal...



    prove this conjecture



    Quote:

    that those of you who hate Bush so much (and America for that matter) can reconcile this with your image of Clinton-as-God



    oy. I dont think you can prove that everyone who hates Bush (and America...) holds Clinton-as-God. I also dont think you can prove that those that hate Bush hate America as well (but this was simply implicit in your throwaway phrase and not outrightly suggested).



    These reasons you supply are empty. Please if you want people to respond to your discussion, you need to at least provide reasons with meat so to speak...
  • Reply 11 of 40
    objra10objra10 Posts: 679member
    show me a democrat or liberal who hasn't used every chance he could to slam the president other than Clinton? You can't, because every single one treats this like some sort of political ammunition.



    I find it odd that you just attempt to dismiss my comments instead of defending against them. Perhaps it's because they are true. Perhaps it's because the democratic party is against protecting our society, our people and our country. Perhaps it's because democrats and liberals are anti-Bush AND anti-American. I don't think they're anti-American because they are anti-Bush, I think they're anti-Bush because he stands for everything that is America, and they are anti-American.
  • Reply 12 of 40
    thttht Posts: 4,508member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    I disagree. Clinton made his desire to see Hussein gone clear and regime change became PotUS stance ~1998. That doesn't mean invasion, of course, but throw in 9/11 and who knows.



    I think Clinton would've have bombed Afghanistan or taken whatever action to counter al Queda. Concurrently or after that, I think he would have engaged in some politics with Saudi Arabia. Iraq would be left alone.



    In an alternate reality, there could be even some circumstances that could make Iraq our friend once more!
  • Reply 13 of 40
    thttht Posts: 4,508member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    show me a democrat or liberal who hasn't used every chance he could to slam the president other than Clinton? You can't, because every single one treats this like some sort of political ammunition.



    Hehe, you're complaining about the way the game is played. Funny.



    There is no truth in politics. I would advise you to ignore all news, all punditry, and all commentary or at least put a skeptical eye on it. Essentially everything that is in print or coming out of someone's mouth in the political arena should be considered a lie until proven with actual data. That's the way I do it.



    Quote:

    I find it odd that you just attempt to dismiss my comments instead of defending against them. Perhaps it's because they are true. Perhaps it's because the democratic party is against protecting our society, our people and our country. Perhaps it's because democrats and liberals are anti-Bush AND anti-American. I don't think they're anti-American because they are anti-Bush, I think they're anti-Bush because he stands for everything that is America, and they are anti-American.



    Wow, I must exist in some heretofore unknown realm of villiany, since I'm anti-Bush, anti-American and an athiest. What could be worse.
  • Reply 14 of 40
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    show me a democrat or liberal who hasn't used every chance he could to slam the president other than Clinton? You can't, because every single one treats this like some sort of political ammunition.



    I find it odd that you just attempt to dismiss my comments instead of defending against them. Perhaps it's because they are true. Perhaps it's because the democratic party is against protecting our society, our people and our country. Perhaps it's because democrats and liberals are anti-Bush AND anti-American. I don't think they're anti-American because they are anti-Bush, I think they're anti-Bush because he stands for everything that is America, and they are anti-American.




    Your comments are dismissed because they are drenched in hyperbole designed to evoke an emotional response. I especially like your attempt to steal "patriotism" from anyone who isn't a Bush-lover. Man, the dots you tried to connect are...well...f*cking hilarious!



    So, to use your own logic....



    Show me a Republican or 'right winger" who hasn't tried to personally destroy, malign or character assassinate every democratic president or nominee?



    Show me a Republican who isn't insulted or appalled at any criticism, what-so-ever, about anything toward the president or his administration?



    Show me an instance where a "right wing" hate radio talk show host hasn't pubicly scolded any and every Democrat for doing something as preposterous and un-american as asking for accountability. I know, I know. You guys are the "moral majority", so what do the rest of us heathens know anyway? Sorry, didn't mean to cut into your guys' action.



    If this mission was as clear and straight-forward as you believe, then why has the marketing message changed, over and over again. First it was this, then it was that. Now it's this.



    If there wasn't anything to hide, why has Jim Angle of FOX NEWS stated that this was the most secretive administration he's covered since Nixon?



    All of this is mute anway. Clinton pretty much said the same thing on David Letterman several weeks before the war.



    EDIT: Typo
  • Reply 15 of 40
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    show me a democrat or liberal who hasn't used every chance he could to slam the president other than Clinton? You can't, because every single one treats this like some sort of political ammunition.



    I find it odd that you just attempt to dismiss my comments instead of defending against them. Perhaps it's because they are true. Perhaps it's because the democratic party is against protecting our society, our people and our country. Perhaps it's because democrats and liberals are anti-Bush AND anti-American. I don't think they're anti-American because they are anti-Bush, I think they're anti-Bush because he stands for everything that is America, and they are anti-American.




    Your comments are lacking in something... It is presumptive that someone should have to defend against some other persons unproven comments. You have not offered any proof of your conjectures. Arguing against Bush's policies are par for the course, bashing his person is not. I have argued against his policies, and I have a right to, in fact a mandate to express my own views. I have not attacked Bush's character. You must define slam. I dont personally believe that I have 'slammed' Bush. And I am thus so to speak the liberal (and democrat) that hasnt used every opportunity to 'slam' the president.



    To believe that liberals are anti-American is to take the route of McCarthy, and I would suppose you agree with the stances taken in the book Treason. I merely ask you to define what is American? And how in that definition Bush supports what is American. To me the United States is a place of tolerance (and perhaps even celebration of differences -- granted it has not always been that way and individuals will use their power to sway the concept one way or another), where the Bill of Rights offers a guiding principle in that forward looking concept, one that protect the rights of all persons. This administration in its very actions goes against my definition of what is American.



    Since you offer no definition of what is American, and what is anti-American. Your comments are again meaningless.
  • Reply 16 of 40
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    Why should it be discussed? hmmm perhaps because every democrat and liberal that can get an audience has been slamming the president for 16 perfectly accurate words he used in the State of the Union, and here comes the leader of the Democratic Party supporting the President on this matter.



    I find it hard to believe that those of you who hate Bush so much (and America for that matter) can reconcile this with your image of Clinton-as-God.




    but those 16 words are indicative of a bigger problem (one i might add, that probably existed before the current administration as well) and that's the use of intelligence information.

    9-11 possibly could have been averted had the intelligence community communicated better with the fbi (a mole agent was living with two of the high-jackers and didn't have a clue!) and the justice department.



    now the administration is using intelligence, without verifying it for the purpose of invading iraq. whereas if they'd have investigated the intelligence.....oh say...looked at the paperwork it was based on, and rang up the fellow in niger and asked him why he was selling plutonium to iraq, they would have found out that it was bogus.

    it's startling to me that no one has latched on to this aspect.



    so clearly if they didn't know it was bogus, someone wasn't doing their job.

    and if they knew it was bogus they were using it to pursue their goal of invading iraq.



    frankly i'd prefer the second option because the first is to scary to fathom.
  • Reply 17 of 40
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,895member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    prove this conjecture







    oy. I dont think you can prove that everyone who hates Bush (and America...) holds Clinton-as-God. I also dont think you can prove that those that hate Bush hate America as well (but this was simply implicit in your throwaway phrase and not outrightly suggested).



    These reasons you supply are empty. Please if you want people to respond to your discussion, you need to at least provide reasons with meat so to speak...




    Give me a break. Nearly EVERY Democrat, (especially those running for President) has been slamming Bush for the possibility of political advantage. What world do you live in?





    OBJ:









    Quote:

    show me a democrat or liberal who hasn't used every chance he could to slam the president other than Clinton? You can't, because every single one treats this like some sort of political ammunition.



    I find it odd that you just attempt to dismiss my comments instead of defending against them. Perhaps it's because they are true. Perhaps it's because the democratic party is against protecting our society, our people and our country. Perhaps it's because democrats and liberals are anti-Bush AND anti-American. I don't think they're anti-American because they are anti-Bush, I think they're anti-Bush because he stands for everything that is America, and they are anti-American.



    Exactly. Most liberals are exactly the things you said. They've been rooting against the country for fifty years, despite what they say. Liberals have been on the wrong side of nearly every national security issue for the last fifty years. They have even been proven wrong on the myth of McCarthyism, with the secret Verona Project (Soviet Cable Code Breaking) declassification. They were wrong about Vietnam, and Nixon took a lot of the blame. They were REALLY wrong about Reagan. They said he was a war monger who would start WWIII. They were wrong about Grenada. They were wrong about Panama. They were wrong about Gulf War I and they'll be proven wrong yet again for Gulf War II. It's undeniable. Liberals cannot be trusted to protect the nation.



    Northgate:









    Quote:

    Your comments are dismissed because they are drenched in hyperbole designed to evoke an emotional response. I especially like your attempt to steal "patriotism" from anyone who isn't a Bush-lover. Man, the dots you tried to connect are...well...f*cking hilarious!





    I didn't hear him say that. One doesn't have to support Bush to love America. One does have to refer to him with respect and actually listen to what the man has to say, though. To an extent, being "anti-Bush" (rather than simply not supporting him) is, in fact, Anti-American. This kind of a comment by a liberal, like you, show how most liberals see things. According to them, "this is a scary time, filled with flag waving lemmings, middle eastern racisim and profiling, and military power". A term comes to mind here: Anti-American.







    Quote:

    Show me a Republican or 'right winger" who hasn't tried to personally destroy, malign or character assassinate every democratic president or nominee?



    Show me a Republican who isn't insulted or appalled at any criticism, what-so-ever, about anything toward the president or his administration?





    I know of many for point number one. How about we discuss the unprecedented holding up of Bush's nominees?



    Point two is, well, pointless.





    Quote:

    Show me an instance where a "right wing" hate radio talk show host hasn't pubicly scolded any and every Democrat for doing something as preposterous and un-american as asking for accountability. I know, I know. You guys are the "moral majority", so what do the rest of us heathens know anyway? Sorry, didn't mean to cut into your guys' action.





    Typical disingenuous liberal. "Hate Radio". This term is thrown around as if it is fact. It's really quite ingenious to label conservative radio as such. Nothing could be further from the truth. The label has absolutely no basis in reality. It was created by liberals, and used by liberals. This term is nothing more than a sad attempt to discredit one of the most popular (and quickly growing) formats in the nation. Maybe I should start calling ABC News "Hate TV". Oh, wait...Fox has that title already. Sean Hannity has 12-13 million listeners a day and it scares the hell out of the Left. Limbaugh has about as many.



    Liberals don't want "accountability". They want revenge. They want power. They want to change the Constitution so that they can do things their way, like go to war with a 75% majority of Congress. They want to do things like create a comittee to pre--approve Bush's nominees, even though this right to nominate is guaranteed to the President by the Constitution.







    Quote:

    If there wasn't anything to hide, why has Jim Angle of FOX NEWS stated that this was the most secretive administration he's covered since Nixon?



    All of this is mute anway. Clinton pretty much said the same thing on David Letterman several weeks before the war.





    Point one is just absurd. Bush has tight control of public perception. So what?



    Point two is not absurd...it's hilarious. Clinton said an administration was secretive? Stop....you are killing me here! You're talking about one of the most morally bankrupt Presidents in US history, with perhaps the most corrupt admiistration..."EVAR". And he's criticizing Bush? Wow. That's rich.
  • Reply 18 of 40
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Give me a break. Nearly EVERY Democrat, especially those running for President has been slamming Bush for the possibility of politcal advantage. What world do you live in?





    Define slam. The President may make mistakes, but he is accountable if those mistakes cost lives.
  • Reply 19 of 40
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,895member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    Define slam. The President may make mistakes, but he is accountable if those mistakes cost lives.



    This argument is not even worth my time. I'm playing your bullshit semantical games.



    Definition of slam, to humor you: Bob Graham saying what Bush "did" with he Iraq intel rises to level of impeachment. He even had to recant when later asked about it. That's a "slam".
  • Reply 20 of 40
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    This argument is not even worth my time. I'm playing your bullshit semantical games.



    Definition of slam, to humor you: Bob Graham saying what Bush "did" with he Iraq intel rises to level of impeachment. He even had to recant when later asked about it. That's a "slam".




    Weak semantics are a sign of weak arguments necessarily. Clear language facilitates the exchange of ideas. Using well defined terms allows the rest of the readers on this board to follow your arguments. Defining by example is not, in my opinion, acceptable when a generalization such as the one you support obviously isnt true in this case. Not every democrat etc thinks that the intel twist is an impeachable offense.



    [Realistically, you are wrong about your generalization concerning liberals and national security just as much as it would be wrong for me to claim that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of every bit of social progress that has occured in the past 50 years.]
Sign In or Register to comment.