Clinton to go on Fox tomorrow

[JonnyB]

Oh. My. God. You are kidding right? Clintons little bus had its wheels popping off. The man couldnt even control himself.
.

Matter of opinion I guess. The way I saw it He was passionate, he controlled himself and he controlled the discussion.

and it's JonnyB, no h

 

[.Shane.]

By that analogy you place Clinton in higher esteem than any president who sat during a war. As for my opinion, I believe the liar to be the worse of the two, because sometimes a leader has to order men to die, intentional or otherwise. History will be the judge...not you, nor me.

No, I put him higher than any president who sat through or started an unjust war. That is a crime of infinitely greater proportion than lying about your personal, sexual life.

 

[MobBoss]

No, I put him higher than any president who sat through or started an unjust war. That is a crime of infinitely greater proportion than lying about your personal, sexual life.

You are not being honest. Congress voted for it overwhelmingly - and that includes democrats and republicans. If the war were so "unjust" then perhaps they shouldnt have voted for it?

Anyway, bottom line, a good number of people in the USA does feel the war "just" based upon the UN resolutions and our congressional vote. There isnt any one single reason in the congressional vote to go to war- there are many. Were mistakes made? Sure. Mistakes will always happen. But mistakes in of themselves do not make a war unjust.

If you wish to blame Bush as being guilty of a crime of an unjust war, well, you damn well better include each and every congressman/woman that vote "aye" for it as well.

 

[Narz]

Did Clinton go on to talk about his environmental policy, the YouTube video seemed to cut the interview short?

 

[.Shane.]

Did Clinton go on to talk about his environmental policy, the YouTube video seemed to cut the interview short?

You can find it in 3 parts, in which, yes, he does talk about the other stuff for about 1/2 the time.

 

[.Shane.]

You are not being honest. Congress voted for it overwhelmingly - and that includes democrats and republicans. If the war were so "unjust" then perhaps they shouldnt have voted for it?

I am being honest. I've been against the war and seen it as the sham that it is since day 1.

Anyway, bottom line, a good number of people in the USA does feel the war "just" based upon the UN resolutions and our congressional vote. There isnt any one single reason in the congressional vote to go to war- there are many. Were mistakes made? Sure. Mistakes will always happen. But mistakes in of themselves do not make a war unjust.

No, selling a false bill of goods makes it unjust. Killing 10s of 1000s of people for what will be, in the end, not much of a point, that is unjust. Using the memory of the 9/11 dead to constantly stoke the fears of the public and to browbeat opposition, that is unjust. Diverting the Armed Forces and intelligence community from the real threat, that is unjust. Continually acting like everything is great, even as you admit that all your proclaimed reasons for the war have no truth to them, that is unjust.

If you wish to blame Bush as being guilty of a crime of an unjust war, well, you damn well better include each and every congressman/woman that vote "aye" for it as well.

Hardly. They were misled. Its fraud of a massive proportion. I don't think they deliberately lied, but its clear to anyone who isn't in neocon lockstep that the Bush WH, led by Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted this war and made sure they got it. Hell, they wanted it in 1999. 911 gave them the pretext to hijack our foreign policy and consequently drive it into the ground. They made it clear that any intelligence or individual who did not give them the answers they wanted were unwelcome. They rigged the game.

Unfortunately, there are no political lemon laws.

 

[MobBoss]

Hardly. They were misled. Its fraud of a massive proportion.

Conspiracy theorists unite!

Bottom line, what you state is not true. Democrats are on record as saying Saddam was dangerous and a threat to the USA even prior to before Bush Jr. was elected. Where they being lied to then? Hell no.

I don't think they deliberately lied, but its clear to anyone who isn't in neocon lockstep that the Bush WH, led by Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted this war and made sure they got it. Hell, they wanted it in 1999.

Huh? Ah...those guys were not in power in 1999.

911 gave them the pretext to hijack our foreign policy and consequently drive it into the ground. They made it clear that any intelligence or individual who did not give them the answers they wanted were unwelcome. They rigged the game.

Again...conspiracy theorists unite!

Unfortunately, there are no political lemon laws.

Undoubtedly Jimmy Carter thanks God for that.

 

[GenMarshall]

Undoubtedly Jimmy Carter thanks God for that.

Do you have something against Democrats/US Liberals? Just wondering. .

 

[.Shane.]

Bottom line, what you state is not true. Democrats are on record as saying Saddam was dangerous and a threat to the USA even prior to before Bush Jr. was elected. Where they being lied to then? Hell no.

Blah blah blah. Yeah, he was a real threat stuck between 2 no-fly zones and being constantly monitored by the UN, the US, etc....

Huh? Ah...those guys were not in power in 1999.

This is what is so charming about you. You're not stupid, so I'm sure you're aware of the Project for a New America. But, let's disingenuously act like they didn't exist.

For those of you unaware, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and other prominent Neocons made it CLEAR that they wanted to remove Saddam prior to Bush's election. One of them, I believe it was Rummy, but please correct me if I'm wrong, is even on the record as stating that we'd need a catastrophic event (gee, something like 9/11?) as a catalyst to get the country to support what they knew would be an otherwise unpopular war.**

Now, don't go off the deepend, I do not think for 1 minute that they were behind 9/11. But it sure played into their hands nicely, didn't it? Its what they desired and needed.

So, what I'm saying is that Iraq was a target for them long before 9/11. Post-9/11 they just needed to make everything, the intelligence, the reports, the reporting, etc.... fall in line w/ their pre-determined agenda.

Again...conspiracy theorists unite!

Again, attack the messenger, but ignore the meat of the argument. Bravo.

At least Jimmy Carter, who I agree was a poor president, actually lives up to his words as a Christian, I think you'd of had some respect for that, but I realize he's not a rightwing Republican, so probably not.

**edit: The quote is this ""Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." and it comes from their primary document that outlines their goals, etc...

*** edit 2:This is a list of PfNA members who have served the Bush administration.

 

[GenMarshall]

At least Jimmy Carter, who I agree was a poor president, actually lives up to his words as a Christian, I think you'd of had some respect for that, but I realize he's not a rightwing Republican, so probably not.

As a Moderate Catholic Democrat, I do have respect for Jimmy Carter. Especialy since he also pushed forward to open up a Naval Base right in his home state of Georgia. He may be a poor president, but I do have to give him credit for putting his effort into his job and thats what it counts to me.

 

[.Shane.]

As a Moderate Catholic Democrat, I do have respect for Jimmy Carter. Especialy since he also pushed forward to open up a Naval Base right in his home state of Georgia. He may be a poor president, but I do have to give him credit for putting his effort into his job and thats what it counts to me.

Outside of his presidency, or, rather, since he left office, he's been a model of what a Christian leader should be. Hell, a model of what any decent person w/ moderate power should be, Christian or otherwise.

 

[MobBoss]

Blah blah blah. Yeah, he was a real threat stuck between 2 no-fly zones and being constantly monitored by the UN, the US, etc....

So, when hit with fact your reply devolves into "blah, blah, blah". Got it.

This is what is so charming about you. You're not stupid, so I'm sure you're aware of the Project for a New America. But, let's disingenuously act like they didn't exist.

I happily take your Project for a New American and trump you with Clintons very own TAADAA: Iraq Liberation Act http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Heavens. It seems that not only the PNC wanted Saddam out of power. Oh the shame.

For those of you unaware, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and other prominent Neocons made it CLEAR that they wanted to remove Saddam prior to Bush's election.

Well, gee...so did Clinton and a host of other democrats at the time. Your point?

Again, attack the messenger, but ignore the meat of the argument. Bravo.

Last I recall, my debate involved a bit more than your "blah, blah, blah". Bravo yourself.

 

[.Shane.]

So, when hit with fact your reply devolves into "blah, blah, blah". Got it.

Oh please. I replied to your point. As you know, Saddam was hamstrung.

I happily take your Project for a New American and trump you with Clintons very own TAADAA: Iraq Liberation Act http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Heavens. It seems that not only the PNC wanted Saddam out of power. Oh the shame.

Its one thing to want him out of power. Hell, I wanted him out of power. Its another to bend policy, manipulate the deaths of 1000s, and tell the intelligence community the conclusions you want reached.

Last I recall, my debate involved a bit more than your "blah, blah, blah". Bravo yourself.

I answered your point, clearly. You neglect to mention that. Again, w/ the disingenuousness. Seriously, who wouldn't want Saddam out of power? The difference is the lengths to which the Neocons wanted him out. Can you produce any of these Democrat leaders saying they needed a "another Pearl Harbor" to achieve their ends?

If we had any of the respectable leaders of 2000 in the WH (Gore, McCain, Lieberman, Powell), you know as well as I do that there would never have been a war w/ Iraq in terms of the path we went down.

As I've said before, to you, in fact. I'm not saying there wouldn't have been a time and place to deal w/ Saddam. Unfortunately, the Neocons (their term, not mine) have screwed up the hunt for Bin Laden and created new legions of new terrorists because of their Iraq obsession.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, when hit with fact your reply devolves into "blah, blah, blah". Got it.

Allright, lets talk about poor replies, spot the argument in this:

Oh. My. God. You are kidding right? Clintons little bus had its wheels popping off. The man couldnt even control himself.

Can't find it? Neither can I. Next time just write: "Is not!". It's shorter, saves time and is content wise simular.

Last I recall, my debate involved a bit more than your "blah, blah, blah". Bravo yourself.

People in glass temples

 

[MobBoss]

Allright, lets talk about poor replies, spot the argument in this:

Can't find it? Neither can I. Next time just write: "Is not!". It's shorter, saves time and is content wise simular.


People in glass temples

Hmmmm. Not sure how you seem to think the two comments are identical.....last I recall an opinion (which I gave) is a bit more than "blah, blah, blah" in most intellectual circles. But hey, perhaps they do things different where you live.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hmmmm. Not sure how you seem to think the two comments are identical.....last I recall an opinion (which I gave) is a bit more than "blah, blah, blah" in most intellectual circles. But hey, perhaps they do things different where you live.

I meant exacly what I said. To the statement that Clinton is a good debater, you countered with the equavelent of: "Is not!". Furthermore, I never said the replies were identical, I said they were comparable. As in if you acuse someone of giving poor replies, first look at your own a few posts back.

Get it now? Just tell me if it's still too hard to understand this time and I will explain it to you like you're in a intellectual circle of 6 year olds

"where you live" .... dude, childish.

 

[MobBoss]

I answered your point, clearly. You neglect to mention that. Again, w/ the disingenuousness. Seriously, who wouldn't want Saddam out of power? The difference is the lengths to which the Neocons wanted him out. Can you produce any of these Democrat leaders saying they needed a "another Pearl Harbor" to achieve their ends?

Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998

"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors

Now, Shane..earlier you said, and I quote "Hardly. They were misled. Its fraud of a massive proportion." But...if these people were saying this PRIOR to Bush taking office, ah...who exactly was doing the misleading and fraud of massive proportion? Could it have been....Clinton himself?

@ Ziggy. There is where you are wrong. My reply wasnt to Clinton being a good debator, but that he "he took that guy to task". Sure, Clinton can be a good debator, but in that interview he was off his game. So, by all means, turn in your forum police badge and gun. Dont like my posting style? /shrug. Your issue, not mine.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@ Ziggy. There is where you are wrong. My reply wasnt to Clinton being a good debator, but that he "he took that guy to task". Sure, Clinton can be a good debator, but in that interview he was off his game. So, by all means, turn in your forum police badge and gun. Dont like my posting style? /shrug. Your issue, not mine.

Blah blah blah.

Nope, I don't like your posting style, but that is irrelevant and indeed not your concern. Again, that was not what I adressed. I adressed the hypocrycy of you telling Shane his reply wasn't upto standard. Regardless if the issue was that Clinton is a good debater, or that he took the guy to task, your reply still was and is: "Is not" which has as much argumentative value as "blah blah blah".

Now this was so blatantly obvious I guess there's good reason you're tapdancing to not grasp that.

And I must say it's delightfull you tell me to turn in my forum police badge right after you critisized Shane for his post.

"Excellent"

 

[.Shane.]

Now, Shane..earlier you said, and I quote "Hardly. They were misled. Its fraud of a massive proportion." But...if these people were saying this PRIOR to Bush taking office, ah...who exactly was doing the misleading and fraud of massive proportion? Could it have been....Clinton himself?

I think you're still missing my point. As I said, who didn't want Saddam out of power?

But, did Clinton or any of the others you quoted actually lead us into a war w/ Iraq? No. (In fact you cite a great example of how to handle the hamstrung Saddam)

Did they actually send a clear message that they only wanted information that would support their desire to go to a war? No.

Did they purposefully ignore intelligence, shunt it aside, or get rid of people who produced intelligence counter to their pre-formed policy decisions? No.

Did they ever claim that Saddam had anything to do w/ Bin Laden or Al Queda? Not that I'm aware of.

Did Clinton ever question the patriotism of any of his critics for any of his military decisions? I doubt it.

So, here's why I said what I said... When Bush and company came into office, it was on their "to do" list to take out Saddam (even though it was completely unnecessary). 9/11 gave them the leverage to get the public and Congress to go along. They then "rigged the game" so that all the intelligence that got presented fell into line w/ the policy goals they had. They've never once, been honest about any of this.

Among the consequences of this are
*increased, not decreased terrorist activity
*dilution of the mission in to catch/eliminate Bin Laden
*admitting that the stated reasons for the war have for the most part been found to be wrong.
*serious damage to America's reputation globally
*not to mention 10s of thousands of dead people, the overwhelming # of whom are innocents.

But, at any rate, we're just going round and round, aren't we?

 

[Paradigne]

Clinton lost any respect I could have had for him when he got on MTV and talked about his underwear... That was SO what I wanted in a president...