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.
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:
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.
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.
(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:
Quote:
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"
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Quote:
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:
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.
Comments
Anybody got a audio file of the old Mac OS error sound?
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
Originally posted by SDW2001
Quote:
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by Gilsch
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Anger Management.
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
Originally posted by NaplesX
two words for you guys...
Anger Management.
One word for you......
Reality.
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
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.