Write Review
1,982,241 Total Reviews 3,958 New Reviews
8,732 Users Online

Politics and Religion

So now you agree with me yet you say I'm taking out of context?????
Northern Dude 10469 reads
posted

The last paragraph is the exact quote I posted.
You make no sense now.

JBIRDCA13677 reads

From CNN:

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

Related Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval9908 reads

Had Bush reeling?  For 17 months?  What about plans to attack Iraq before 9/11?

He's playing the democratic "good cop."  A role for which he's perfectly suited.  I'm glad he's retired.  

/Zin

ReplyQuoteReport
Californian7027 reads

And, somehow, I am not that sure this book is going to do as well as Hillary's against a set of rational benchmarks ...

-- Modified on 6/20/2004 5:39:34 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
stilltryin258558 reads

Like 1.5-1.7 million and counting.

ReplyQuoteReport
AllHailTheBaloneySandwich8563 reads

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would NOT have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I DIDN'T agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

----------------------------------------------------------
"Are YOU Really Better Off Today Than Four Years Ago ?"

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA8980 reads


Clinton supports the decision.

It's gotta be rough for all the extremists on both sides now.

The Conservatives who bashed Clintin and still think he was rotten-now have a supporter for the current admin.

All the Liberal Bush haters, well now they have a former Dem who says the decision was understandable and is supported.

Both sides have just gotta be nashing their teeth right now.

One thing CLinton's views do is put a perspective that none of US can criticize. Until you have sat in the White House, you don't know all the pressures. Also, it's really easy to sit back and look at the whole situation from the comfort of an armchair.

ReplyQuoteReport
AllHailTheBaloneySandwich9838 reads

I'll give you, IF Bush had NO intent to do anything with Iraq at first, then yes 9/11 could push him over the edge, and being President has got to be stress on the Nth degree.
---------------------

However I just think that wasn't the case, is all. Granted G.W.'s name isn't on the signature list on my below link, but his bro.'s is, and so is 3/4 of his cabinet members.

Review the site, it's their (neo-cons) site, not a bogus Dem. made up one, but it shows that since at least 1997 the mission was to go back to Iraq and take out Saddam, among other things.

And if you put any faith in the Books by Woodward, Clarke, etc. the timing of Iraq still looks very questionable to say the least, when what was suppose to be MISSION #1, get Osama bin Laden (you know the REAL 9/11 guy), was NEVER finished !
---------------------

The other thing I think you can't just gloss over, is that Clinton was out of office, he wasn't privileged to ALL the info G.W. Bush had, weather that’s good or bad, YOU and I don't KNOW. Really all Clinton is saying is, that Bush was right to protect the public (if the info was valid) but that's it. He states further HOW Bush did enact war, wouldn't have been how Clinton would have, he should have waited for more Intel. and support from the rest of the world, and then I think we wouldn't be debating this issue. Bush's actions make it look suspicious though, and that's why it's a topic of debate and controversy.
-----------------------------

Related Link: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

ReplyQuoteReport
snafu9298777 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
AllHailTheBaloneySandwich11187 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
snafu9297761 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Northern Dude9306 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA7763 reads


I copied and pasted a portion that was relevant.

Additionally, I posted the direct link to the whole article.

What was out of context and what was bogus?

I didn't post anything opinion-wise about the article.

ReplyQuoteReport
Northern Dude8307 reads



-- Modified on 6/21/2004 4:56:39 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud8676 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Northern Dude8196 reads

There are many Americans that believe it wasn't about the oil. Rather a personal agenda that was fueled by halftruths and fabricated intelligence. The question should be... Why did Bush's administration let him "reel" for 18 months and then let him declare war without the backing of the UN? ....Now they are trying to change the reasons and what they said were the reasons for the war.

Taken from your CNN link:
'Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job." '

Taken from his interview on 60 Minutes:
' “In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process. Now, having said that, we are where we are,” says Mr. Clinton. “And I think the most important thing now is for all of us to support a stable, peaceful, and pluralistic Iraq. And it looks to me like the administration is moving in that direction.” '

No where did he say he supports Shrub's decision to go to war with Iraq, quite the contrary.

Related Link: What ex Pres. Bill Clinton really supports.

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA7795 reads


1. I merely COPIED the text from CNN. If you had the ability to READ the article posted on the CNN website, you would have realized that IT WAS A DIRECT QUOTE.

2. I made no political comment either way, just asked why nobody had brought the matter up in my subject line.

3. You have judiciously FAILED to finish the part of the interview, WHICH I INCLUDE FROM YOUR LINK:

President Clinton points out that when Hussein kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, he ordered a four-day bombing raid, but was unable to find out how many if any chemical and biological weapons were destroyed in those attacks. He says that the current President Bush should have pushed harder for new inspections.

“In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process. Now, having said that, we are where we are,” says Mr. Clinton. “And I think the most important thing now is for all of us to support a stable, peaceful, and pluralistic Iraq. And it looks to me like the administration is moving in that direction.”

ReplyQuoteReport
Northern Dude10470 reads

The last paragraph is the exact quote I posted.
You make no sense now.

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud9019 reads

Clinton in fact never supported Bush's actions.  He ONLY supported the basic premise that Saddam ought to have been viewed as a threat, absent a good regime of WMD inspections, but NOT that we should have ever attacked Iraq without a substantial multilateral coalition.

ReplyQuoteReport
james867713 reads

still making apologies for Slick Willie, even on those few occasions when he gets it right.

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud9311 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
bribite9646 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
SULLY11282 reads

a)Far Left consider him a republican stooge.   Found him way too conservative for them.  Still furious that Nader is not in office.

b) left?  They still honour him for his accomplishments and governance.  Wonder where all the good will he engendered globally has gone.

c) Wacky Semi-Fascist Birch society types like JimIQ? You got it!  Still confused about political spectrum- hoping that Dumbya is elected King!  Are urged by tired public to educate themselves, so their posts achieve coherence.

ReplyQuoteReport
james868520 reads

I'll concede Sully's expertise in the far Left, so I'll respond only to number 3.

First, it is doubtful that Sully understands the "Birch" reference, since I have and have never had anything to do with that organization, which made the mistake of assuming that appeasers were smart enough to recognize their aid and comfort of Communists.

Second, fascism is actually far Left, as it embraces Socialism.  No one will ever accuse me of that here.

Third, "JimIQ"?  Oh, Sully, you wound.  NOT!  Indulging your penchant for name-calling has caused you to slander me, particularly since my IQ has always tested out (albeit it's been more than 20 years since it was tested) at more than half again higher than the number in my handle.  Not genius level, to be sure, but obviously considerably higher than you demonstrate here.

Fourth, no one I know wants a monarchy.  Though it would be an improvement on the Clinton years.  As John Cleese (late of Monty Python) has observed, at least in England, you only have to get down on one knee before the head of state.  And kiss the monarch's ring.

ReplyQuoteReport
SULLY9258 reads

Actually a bow or curtsey will do in most situations.

And taking somebody's own chosen nickname and riffing of it is not- "name-calling".  I'd have to call you a butt-head or somesuch to do that.  And of course, I know you are- but what am I?

Please continue to think of National Socialism as being a left leaning idea- puts your other opinions in context.  I simply use the Birch reference to show others where you appear on the real spectrum.

Perhaps you haven't heard that IQ has been pretty completely debunked as a real indication of intellect.  I don't care that you scored an 800 on the Stanford Binet tests or that you were a national merit scholar either.  A little reading still might help you make more on target points.  I'll concede you have a brain- its the bizarre stuff inside that amazes me.

And lastly- much as I think of people who get emotionally tied up in a pick up basketball game-  get out more!  This is a place for light banter and the exchange of ideas, some cogent, others often half-baked.  None of us is writing political white papers for Slate, The Nation or the Economist- yet!  I don't lose sleep when you try to score a point- and I certainly hope you don't lose sleep when I debunk your fanciful concepts. If you do?- take  a deep breathe and go hobby- works for all of us!

Peace- my misguided brothah!

ReplyQuoteReport
A3rdGrdrInsultChamp6744 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
HarryLime9659 reads

...  What is Mr Bush going to do, justify his problems by saying that Mr Clinton says it was OK?

It is Mr Bush's war, Mr. Bush's problems, and will probably be Mr. Bush's downfall.

Mr. Bush can save Mr Clinton's comments (full, partial, in context, or out of context) for his memoirs.  I suspect he will begin thinking about writing them starting sometime next year.

Harry

ReplyQuoteReport
Telling ItLikeItIs8291 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!