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...
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
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
g
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.
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.
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?
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?
g
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.
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/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?
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
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.