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?
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
Seems like more than just Clinton were adressing the idea of regime change:
Quote:
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.
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.
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?
Comments
g
as i mentioned, how can you state that "the media" has ignored it when your first link uses newsweek as a source.
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?
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.
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.
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?
your first link quotes sources from wall street journal, washington times, and newsweek, am i missing something?
Who first proposed a regime change?
Hint...
All I got. Continue.
"Bush did good but even so, it is all Clinton's fault . . so there!"
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!"
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/...lation/ILA.htm
nothing about invasion.
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
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/...lation/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.
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/perspective...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.
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.
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?
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.
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?