Regime Change was Clinton Plan
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/2...3/101255.shtml
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/439/intervw.htm
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...999061021.html
I am just curious why the mainstream media has not mentioned this?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...3/101255.shtml
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/439/intervw.htm
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...999061021.html
I am just curious why the mainstream media has not mentioned this?
Comments
A hint for all future posters here at AI. Avoid "the media are not reporting on this" at all cost.
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.
because it was freely open to the public record.
Man, Naples, last time you were a year behind. Now you aren't even in the same century?!
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?
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.
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
Or maybe because it's just newsmax taking advantage of the confused.
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, this is news.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Come on now. I am analizing
Yes you are!
Hey, being able to admit it is certainly the first step....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
How can you have one without the other?
I am not sure who that was directed at...