| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Black Elk" |
| Date: |
11 Nov 2005 10:48:34 PM |
| Object: |
George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to say that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what Bush did.
And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton: Margaret Carlson
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The current U.S. president and his immediate
predecessor are an odder couple than the one on Broadway.
George W. Bush links with, and delinks from, Bill Clinton at will. While he
often uses him as a benchmark for what a president shouldn't be, Bush also
pulls Clinton out of the closet to clean up messes, sometimes in the company
of his father, Bush I. Recently, Bush sent presidents 41 and 42 off to deal
with the aftermath of Katrina.
Bush's latest and most curious use of Clinton is to cite his words as proof
of the administration's reasonableness in going to war. This comes just as
the Senate is being forced into hearings on the possible unreasonableness of
the intelligence Bush relied on for doing so.
The White House puts out talking points citing Clinton's conviction that
Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he was a menace in the
region. If Clinton believed it, why shouldn't the Bush administration?
The Difference
It's a hard charge to answer because Clinton did say what Bush says he said.
But the argument misses one big fact: Clinton signed off on a speech, not on
a war; he agreed on the problem, not the solution.
Clinton was a president who demanded every available fact before proposing
as much as uniforms in public schools. The certainty about the danger from
Saddam that made it necessary for Clinton to rattle his saber at the
dictator, as he did many times, is different from the certainty required to
invade a sovereign country.
Clinton had many flaws, but he wouldn't have ginned up intelligence to
support a preconceived notion, nor suppress intelligence that didn't. In the
Bush administration there was a cabal just for that.
Colorfully described by Larry Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin
Powell's chief of staff, there were the neocons with their fantasies of
spreading democracy, ***** Cheney with his Darth Vader post-9/11 desire to
hit someone and his insistence that Saddam was tied to al-Qaeda, and Donald
Rumsfeld with his streamlined, agile army that could whup anyone and sustain
few casualties.
Pentagon Rogues
For conjuring up the intelligence the CIA couldn't or wouldn't produce,
there was a whole rogue operation out of the Pentagon. These folks amplified
the scary stuff and ditched the rest. They gave God-like credence to an
Iraqi defector who said what they wanted, and then fed his stuff directly
onto the front page of the New York Times.
Administration officials would then cite the front page of the New York
Times in supporting their assertion about Saddam's capabilities, and voila,
they had their slam-dunk case.
Usually a cabal doesn't have the official leader in it. Of course, this one
did. Bush loved his cabal. The one leader left out of the loop was Secretary
of State Colin Powell, who never had a chance of getting the true picture.
By the time Powell went to CIA headquarters to prepare his speech to the UN,
Cheney had been there multiple times to scrub the data.
Clinton would never treat fresh facts with indifference. When weapons
inspectors couldn't find weapons, Bush concluded that Saddam was a genius at
hiding them, not that he should adjust his thinking to accommodate the
findings, or at least wait to see if any weapons turned up.
Ignoring Condi, Sometimes
Bush blocks out info he doesn't want to hear. White House Communications
Director Dan Bartlett had to force-feed him tapes of the nightly news to
show how desperate the situation in New Orleans was after Katrina. Bush
preferred Brownie's take.
A month before Sept. 11, Bush ignored Condoleezza Rice when she brought him
a briefing book that said terrorists were plotting an imminent strike. (Yet
he hung on her every word when she said that ``the smoking gun could come in
the form of a mushroom cloud.'') He never questioned, although other
analysts did, her assertion that Saddam was importing high-quality aluminum
tubes suited only for nuclear weapons centrifuge programs.
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to say that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what Bush did.
And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
If Only
Indeed, if he had gotten the Condi intelligence warning that Osama was
poised to attack, we don't know what Clinton would have done. We do know
there would have been all-nighters to assess it.
Bush was so convinced that Rumsfeld's army would make quick work of Iraq he
never thought he would end up being so desperate he had to quote Clinton to
answer critics.
Rather than cite Clinton for the wrong proposition, he should recall what
Clinton and his father actually did about Iraq. Both Bush I and Clinton knew
enough to fear a post-Saddam Iraq, riven by civil war, and a post-Saddam
America stuck in a country we can't govern and can't get out of.
If only Bush II had listened.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=aG3WL.nKfQMQ
--
They Knew...
Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned
before the war that its Iraq claims were weak
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/
--
A published report says a top al-Qaida operative in U.S. custody gave false
information later used by the Bush administration to support its contention
that Iraq trained al-Qaida militants to use illegal weapons.
The New York Times reports Sunday that newly declassified portions of a
February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency document says Ibn al-Shaykh
al-Libi misled debriefers in his claims about Iraq's work with al-Qaida
members.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2005/intell-051106-voa01.htm
--
"From the brief time that we did spend occupying Iraqi territory
after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would
have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit - we would still be there,
and we, not the United Nations, would be bearing the costs of
the occupation. This is a burden I am sure the beleaguered
American taxpayer would not have been happy to take on."
- Norman Schwarzkopf, from his 1993 autobiography, "It Doesn't
Take a Hero."
--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1435181,00.html
www.iraqbodycount.net
www.costofwar.com
http://icasualties.org/oif/
--
The fair use of a copyrighted work:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
.
|
|
| User: "golds" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 04:41:55 AM |
|
|
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to say that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what Bush did.
And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had. Most of the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and other assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in power. Still be
in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still defying the world
community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda still operate around
the world without fear of reprisal and maintain that 911 was our fault (the
US).
We hear you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Elk" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 08:45:59 AM |
|
|
<golds> wrote in message news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to say that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had. Most of the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and other assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in power. Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still defying the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain that 911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed hundreds of
thousands of people, bilked U.S. taxpayers out of 200 billion dollars and
you're still trying to link Iraq with 9-11 and al Qaeda of which there is no
evidence for either until they began using Iraq for a training camp and base
to attack U.S. military personnel and Iraqis.
BTW, Bush's invasion of Iraq has hurt the "war on terrorism" by becoming a
recruiting tool for al Qaeda and Muslim extremists.
--
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the
country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag
the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 02:46:09 PM |
|
|
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had. Most of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still defying the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain that 911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed hundreds of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Dykes" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 02:45:02 PM |
|
|
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had. Most of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still defying the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain that 911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed hundreds of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 05:04:26 PM |
|
|
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had. Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed hundreds of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Dykes" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 05:10:58 PM |
|
|
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had. Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed hundreds of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
I don't see *anyone* pushing this issue except Bush and the PNAC
people he's a front for.
Nixon, Reagan{+Bush Sr, Bush Sr with a constitutional crisis
with each of them. Why should we ever vote for a Republican again.
Thousands of maimed solders and a trillion added to the national debt.
http://nytimes.com/2005/08/20/opinion/20bilmes.html?adxnnl=1&adxnn
lx=1124547006-ubMRFbT1Wy7GB01mK3dmqg
The New York Times
August 20, 2005
The Trillion-Dollar War
By LINDA BILMES
Cambridge, Mass.
THE human cost of the more than 2,000 American military
personnel killed and 14,500 wounded so far in Iraq and
Afghanistan is all too apparent. But the financial toll is still
largely hidden from public view and, like the suffering of those
who have lost loved ones, will persist long after the fighting
is over.
The cost goes well beyond the more than $250 billion already
spent on military operations and reconstruction. Basic running
costs of the current conflicts are $6 billion a month - a figure
that reflects the Pentagon's unprecedented reliance on expensive
private contractors. Other factors keeping costs high include
inducements for recruits and for military personnel serving
second and third deployments, extra pay for reservists and
members of the National Guard, as well as more than $2 billion a
year in additional foreign aid to Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and
others to reward their cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
bill for repairing and replacing military hardware is $20
billion a year, according to figures from the Congressional
Budget Office.
But the biggest long-term costs are disability and health
payments for returning troops, which will be incurred even if
hostilities were to stop tomorrow. The United States currently
pays more than $2 billion in disability claims per year for
159,000 veterans of the 1991 gulf war, even though that conflict
lasted only five weeks, with 148 dead and 467 wounded. Even
assuming that the 525,000 American troops who have so far served
in Iraq and Afghanistan will require treatment only on the same
scale as their predecessors from the gulf war, these payments
are likely to run at $7 billion a year for the next 45 years.
All of this spending will need to be financed by adding to the
federal debt. Extra interest payments will total $200 billion or
more even if the borrowing is repaid quickly. Conflict in the
Middle East has also played a part in doubling the price of oil
from $30 a barrel just prior to the invasion of Iraq in March
2003 to $60 a barrel today. Each $5 increase in the price of oil
reduces our national income by about $17 billion a year.
Even by this simple yardstick, if the American military presence
in the region lasts another five years, the total outlay for the
war could stretch to more than $1.3 trillion, or $11,300 for
every household in the United States.
Linda Bilmes, an assistant secretary at the Department of
Commerce from 1999 to 2001, teaches budgeting and public finance
at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 05:46:42 PM |
|
|
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5sq2$l7f$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to
say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had.
Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in
power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still
defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda
still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain
that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed hundreds
of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
After 9-11 yes who ever was president to protect the country and to defeat
global terrorism would have invaded Iraq.
I don't see *anyone* pushing this issue except Bush and the PNAC
people he's a front for.
Than you are in denial or an ignorant fool.
And since you want to support the terrorists, you are part of the problem
and a threat to the security of America and her interests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Dykes" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 05:47:19 PM |
|
|
In article <11ncvbq5uccjlbf@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5sq2$l7f$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to
say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had.
Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in
power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still
defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda
still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain
that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed hundreds
of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
After 9-11 yes who ever was president to protect the country and to defeat
global terrorism would have invaded Iraq.
I don't see *anyone* pushing this issue except Bush and the PNAC
people he's a front for.
Than you are in denial or an ignorant fool.
And since you want to support the terrorists, you are part of the problem
and a threat to the security of America and her interests.
To repeat; I don't see *anyone* pushing this issue except Bush and the
PNAC people he's a front for.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 06:44:14 PM |
|
|
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5uu7$8f3$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncvbq5uccjlbf@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5sq2$l7f$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana
<whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message
news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is
to
say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done
what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had.
Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and
other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in
power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still
defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda
still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain
that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed
hundreds
of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
After 9-11 yes who ever was president to protect the country and to
defeat
global terrorism would have invaded Iraq.
I don't see *anyone* pushing this issue except Bush and the PNAC
people he's a front for.
Than you are in denial or an ignorant fool.
And since you want to support the terrorists, you are part of the problem
and a threat to the security of America and her interests.
To repeat; I don't see *anyone* pushing this issue except Bush and the
PNAC people he's a front for.
Than you are in denial or an ignorant fool.
And since you want to support the terrorists, you are part of the problem
and a threat to the security of America and her interests.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Dykes" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
13 Nov 2005 08:33:22 AM |
|
|
In article <11nd2nonp4tjv43@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5uu7$8f3$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncvbq5uccjlbf@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5sq2$l7f$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana
<whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message
news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is
to
say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done
what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had.
Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and
other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in
power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still
defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda
still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain
that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed
hundreds
of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
After 9-11 yes who ever was president to protect the country and to
defeat
global terrorism would have invaded Iraq.
I don't see *anyone* pushing this issue except Bush and the PNAC
people he's a front for.
Than you are in denial or an ignorant fool.
And since you want to support the terrorists, you are part of the problem
and a threat to the security of America and her interests.
To repeat; I don't see *anyone* pushing this issue except Bush and the
PNAC people he's a front for.
Than you are in denial or an ignorant fool.
And since you want to support the terrorists, you are part of the problem
I want to fight terrorism when and where possible and especially when
it can affect the United States.
Per _Dying to Win - The Strategic Logic of Suicide terrorism_
- Pape 2005
Pape catalogs *all* suicide bombings by source and target, since 1980,
to 2003. Conclusions;
There were 315 bombers, Not *NONE* are listed as being Iraqi-sourced
After 1983 *NONE* are against the US/Europe other than AQ
AQ was NOT in Iraq until we invaded.
IKMATSTYD
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
13 Nov 2005 02:23:25 PM |
|
|
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl7iri$scg$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nd2nonp4tjv43@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5uu7$8f3$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncvbq5uccjlbf@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5sq2$l7f$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana
<whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana
<whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message
news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It
is
to
say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done
what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush
had.
Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the
Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and
other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in
power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still
defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al
Qaeda
still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and
maintain
that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed
hundreds
of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
After 9-11 yes who ever was president to protect the country and to
defeat
global terrorism would have invaded Iraq.
I don't see *anyone* pushing this issue except Bush and the PNAC
people he's a front for.
Than you are in denial or an ignorant fool.
And since you want to support the terrorists, you are part of the
problem
and a threat to the security of America and her interests.
To repeat; I don't see *anyone* pushing this issue except Bush and the
PNAC people he's a front for.
Than you are in denial or an ignorant fool.
And since you want to support the terrorists, you are part of the problem
I want to fight terrorism
No you do not. That is evident by your posts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Dykes" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 05:44:25 PM |
|
|
In article <11ncvbq5uccjlbf@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5sq2$l7f$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to
say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had.
Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in
power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still
defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda
still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain
that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed hundreds
of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
After 9-11 yes who ever was president to protect the country and to defeat
global terrorism would have invaded Iraq.
Why?
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 06:43:32 PM |
|
|
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5uop$6jl$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncvbq5uccjlbf@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5sq2$l7f$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana
<whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message
news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is
to
say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done
what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had.
Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and
other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in
power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still
defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda
still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain
that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed
hundreds
of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
After 9-11 yes who ever was president to protect the country and to
defeat
global terrorism would have invaded Iraq.
Why?
To defeat global terrorism.
Bring the fight to the terrorists, do not wait for them to strike again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Dykes" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 06:40:04 PM |
|
|
In article <11nd2mfc0d0ad21@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5uop$6jl$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncvbq5uccjlbf@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5sq2$l7f$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana
<whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message
news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is
to
say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done
what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had.
Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and
other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in
power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still
defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda
still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain
that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed
hundreds
of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
After 9-11 yes who ever was president to protect the country and to
defeat
global terrorism would have invaded Iraq.
Why?
To defeat global terrorism.
Bring the fight to the terrorists, do not wait for them to strike again.
I meant why Iraq?
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 07:35:22 PM |
|
|
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl6214$hc0$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nd2mfc0d0ad21@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5uop$6jl$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncvbq5uccjlbf@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5sq2$l7f$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana
<whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana
<whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message
news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It
is
to
say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done
what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush
had.
Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the
Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and
other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in
power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still
defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al
Qaeda
still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and
maintain
that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed
hundreds
of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
After 9-11 yes who ever was president to protect the country and to
defeat
global terrorism would have invaded Iraq.
Why?
To defeat global terrorism.
Bring the fight to the terrorists, do not wait for them to strike again.
I meant why Iraq?
To bring the fight to the terrorists.
And then from there we can launch into teams into Syria and Iran to take out
the heads of states, and the radical islamic mullahs. And back channel to
Saudi that their mullahs are next unless the get their act straight and
peacefull.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Dykes" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
13 Nov 2005 08:29:05 AM |
|
|
In article <11nd5nir73t8585@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl6214$hc0$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nd2mfc0d0ad21@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
[ big snip]
Bring the fight to the terrorists, do not wait for them to strike again.
I meant why Iraq?
To bring the fight to the terrorists.
Then we would have invaded Syria in the first place, or yeman, Sudan,
Somilia. These wereknown to the the hidouts for OBL and AQ (not Syria).
Prior to our invasion OBL/AQ WAS NOT in Iraq in any sense that applies
to this discussion . Zarqawi moved to Iraq when it became obvious
that the US was going to invade. AQ was in Iraq in the form of Ansar
al Islam which was fighting Kurds and had *no* international terrorism
interest or capability.
And then from there we can launch into teams into Syria and Iran to take out
the heads of states, and the radical islamic mullahs. And back channel to
Saudi that their mullahs are next unless the get their act straight and
peacefull.
Dog help us.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
13 Nov 2005 02:22:16 PM |
|
|
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl7ijh$40p$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nd5nir73t8585@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl6214$hc0$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nd2mfc0d0ad21@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
[ big snip]
Bring the fight to the terrorists, do not wait for them to strike
again.
I meant why Iraq?
To bring the fight to the terrorists.
Then we would have invaded Syria
They are next
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marinus van der Lubbe" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 07:29:46 PM |
|
|
Al Dykes wrote:
In article <11ncvbq5uccjlbf@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5sq2$l7f$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11ncssnj3sqmie0@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl5k8e$mj6$1@panix5.panix.com...
In article <11nckp9gc70bh9f@corp.supernews.com>, Dana <whoya@whoya.com>
wrote:
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c8d$4376002d$4fee7bb$8750@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<golds> wrote in message news:apqdnbgF8uZAW-jeRVn-rA@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET...
From the article:
This isn't to say Clinton was a foreign policy genius. It is to
say
that
with the information Bush had, Clinton would never had done what
Bush
did. And it's ludicrous for Bush to say otherwise.
---
Actually Bill Clinton had the exact same information Bush had.
Most
of
the
intelligence used to go to war was developed under the Clinton
administration.
And its a fact that the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. and other
assorted
America hating liberals would prefer that Saddam still be in
power.
Still
be in Kuwait. Still murdering, raping, and torturing. Still
defying
the
world community on inspections. Liberals prefer that Al Qaeda
still
operate around the world without fear of reprisal and maintain
that
911
was our fault (the US).
We hear you.
You warmongers have destroyed a country, killed and maimed hundreds
of
thousands of people,
Your a liar.
At least we can agree that Bush has killed 2000+ GIs and maimed
thousands for life.
Bush has done no such thing, so why is it all you can do is lie.
Would we have invaded Iraq if Bush hadn't been president ?
After 9-11 yes who ever was president to protect the country and to defeat
global terrorism would have invaded Iraq.
Why?
Spilt milk and 300,000 dead Iraqis, the question now is why are we still
there, it's not like the "insurgents" have a nuclear weapons program.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A Veteran for Peace" |
|
| Title: Re: George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 09:34:33 AM |
|
|
In article <96e6$43757425$4e3cb45$2226@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
If only Bush II had listened.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=
aG3WL.nKfQMQ
well, bush is not in charge. He was a victim of the cabal. They
spoon-fed him what they wanted to "think" thinking is not bush's strong
suit.
--
Impeach Bush ! a noble cause
Operation Iraqi Liberation = O.I.L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Black Elk" |
|
| Title: PROOF THAT NEO-FASCISTS ARE PARASITIC TROLLS >>> Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE ALL AMERICANS! ==> George W., on Iraq You're No Bill Clinton |
12 Nov 2005 08:41:48 AM |
|
|
The question of prewar intelligence has been thrust back into the public eye
with the disclosure of a secret British memo showing that, eight months
before the March 2003 start of the war, a senior British intelligence
official reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that U.S. intelligence was
being shaped to support a policy of invading Iraq.
Moreover, a close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president's
commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel,
shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were
internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about
Hussein's alleged weapons programs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100474_pf.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
