Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
the important words there are (i) "at least in retrospect" and (ii) "given the apparent threat"

Too many folks are trying to rewrite history here and forget that everyone wanted to get Hussein out.

Including Saint Bill of Clintonia. Do we really need to repost his words about how Iraq HAS WMDs and is the greatest threat to stability in the ME????

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Including Saint Bill of Clintonia. Do we really need to repost his words about how Iraq HAS WMDs and is the greatest threat to stability in the ME????

Him being so worried about Sadaam, does the ABC Docudrama speculate that this might explain why he didn't want to kill Osama?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Self-assurance is a helluva drug.

Word.

Irony is, in an effourt to bridge the gap in this country and take the higher road, on the first day of school today, I gave them all "HOW WAS YOUR SUMMER!?!?!". and big hugs and air kisses and all that kinder, gentler shite.

Equally ironic in a coincidentallly funny manner, none of the libs here are willing to step and justify or apologise for their own hypocrasy.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Him being so worried about Sadaam, does the ABC Docudrama speculate that this might explain why he didn't want to kill Osama?

Saddam tried to kill GHWB, and Clinton did nothing. Think about that. A foreign government tried to assasinate a former US President and Clinton sat on his hands....or at least just used them to masturbate into the oval office sink as part of a campaign of sexual harassment of one of the WH employees.

Now Clinton is buddying up to Bush41. If I were Poppie, I'd be watching my back.....

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
effourt

Foul.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Too many folks are trying to rewrite history here and forget that everyone wanted to get Hussein out.

No one forgets that everyone wanted Hussein out. That's table stakes to have a non-frivolous conversation about this stuff. The question was, how, and at what cost? You guys love to pretend that Bush's Iraq policy was the logical continuation of what Clinton was doing, but that's just not so. Containment was the obvious alternative to the Bush plan. Given the problems we now have with Iran, it's worth asking whether our whole approach to the region has been fucked up since Bush took office.

eta: Apologize for lumping Penske's moronic posts with your efforts at serious conversation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No one forgets that everyone wanted Hussein out. That's table stakes to have a non-frivolous conversation about this stuff. The question was, how, and at what cost? You guys love to pretend that Bush's Iraq policy was the logical continuation of what Clinton was doing, but that's just not so. Containment was the obvious alternative to the Bush plan. Given the problems we now have with Iran, it's worth asking whether our whole approach to the region has been fucked up since Bush took office.

eta: Apologize for lumping Penske's moronic posts with your efforts at serious conversation.

didn't the containment that was working include our starving the people of Iraq with sanctions and require us to have a few hundred thousand soldiers on its border? you see those as acceptable long term?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No one forgets that everyone wanted Hussein out. That's table stakes to have a non-frivolous conversation about this stuff. The question was, how, and at what cost? You guys love to pretend that Bush's Iraq policy was the logical continuation of what Clinton was doing, but that's just not so. Containment was the obvious alternative to the Bush plan. Given the problems we now have with Iran, it's worth asking whether our whole approach to the region has been fucked up since Bush took office.

eta: Apologize for lumping Penske's moronic posts with your efforts at serious conversation.

wow, politics of personal destruction.

Ty, do you want I post the litany of Clinton's quotes on Iraq and what the use of the military option? He supported it, he just didn't have the guts to be a true commander in chief and execute the policy. He spent 8 years softening our defenses and national security out of his antipathy to the military and intelligence communities. At the same time he exhibited a complete disrespect for the rule of law. In light of your brutal and baseless attacks on our current president, how do you justify your lack of any objective critique of Clinton?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
wow, politics of personal destruction.

Ty, do you want I post the litany of Clinton's quotes on Iraq and what the use of the military option? He supported it, he just didn't have the guts to be a true commander in chief and execute the policy. He spent 8 years softening our defenses and national security out of his antipathy to the military and intelligence communities. At the same time he exhibited a complete disrespect for the rule of law. In light of your brutal and baseless attacks on our current president, how do you justify your lack of any objective critique of Clinton?

what cracks me up most is his belief that he "is serious," and better than you- i don't even merit mentioning.

Bunch of malingerers sitting around posting garbage to argue how the country should be ran and he can distinguih between "serious" and "moronic?" seems to me putting much thought into it is the moronic side, but horses for courses.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
didn't the containment that was working include our starving the people of Iraq with sanctions and require us to have a few hundred thousand soldiers on its border? you see those as acceptable long term?

the problem inherently exhibited in that response Hank, is that containment wasn't working. Saddam continued to be the preeminent force for destabilisation in the region.

Three quotes:

".......our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |

indeed.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what cracks me up most is his belief that he "is serious," and better than you- i don't even merit mentioning.

Ty posts blogger's opinions as fact, and dismisses ABCNews documentaries as fiction. He ignores Clinton's words, yet defends Clinton's policies based on blogger's interpretations and assertions that Bush, as the anti-Clinton, is lying. He relies on the liberal blog community for the foundation of his positions, yet would stand up and justify their hypocrasy. I know he is better than this......perhaps too much wine?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Containment was the obvious alternative to the Bush plan. Given the problems we now have with Iran, it's worth asking whether our whole approach to the region has been fucked up since Bush took office.

Once again, here are/were the problems with "containment"

1) Hussein continually violated each and every new UN sanction and IAEA decree, which (if possible) further eroded any legitimacy these organizations had.

"Don't do that Saddam. We really mean it. Er, okay then. Well, then don't this Saddam. Oh. Er. Well, then..."

2) Because of the "containment" - coupled with the Oil-for-food scandal - millions of Iraqis starved while the Baathists lined their coffers. And because of this, as you recall, there were worldwide calls for the US to "stop the containment" as if it, not Saddam's greed, was the direct cause of starvation of "millions of Iraqi" children. So you here you have a damned if you do, damned if you dont.

3) Containment necessitated the "no-fly rule" - which Saddam routinely broke, you may recall - and led to thousands of troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. According to Bin Laden et al, it was this "occupation" of "Arab holy land" that led to the Muslim unrest leading up to the attacks on the Cole, Khobar and WTC.

When saying it is Bush policy that has led to terrorism, why do so many choose to conveniently forget or ignore these much earlier atrocities???

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Once again, here are/were the problems with "containment"

1) Hussein continually violated each and every new UN sanction and IAEA decree, which (if possible) further eroded any legitimacy these organizations had.



2) Because of the "containment" - coupled with the Oil-for-food scandal - millions of Iraqis starved while the Baathists lined their coffers. And because of this, as you recall, there were worldwide calls for the US to "stop the containment" as if it, not Saddam's greed, was the direct cause of starvation of "millions of Iraqi" children. So you here you have a damned if you do, damned if you dont.

3) Containment necessitated the "no-fly rule" - which Saddam routinely broke, you may recall - and led to thousands of troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. According to Bin Laden et al, it was this "occupation" of "Arab holy land" that led to the Muslim unrest leading up to the attacks on the Cole, Khobar and WTC.

When saying it is Bush policy that has led to terrorism, why do so many choose to conveniently forget or ignore these much earlier atrocities???

Because it would lead them to a truly critical examination of the failure of Clinton's foreign policy and the immense damage that he did to our national security aparatus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
didn't the containment that was working include our starving the people of Iraq with sanctions and require us to have a few hundred thousand soldiers on its border? you see those as acceptable long term?

I agree that the sanctions were inflicting a toll on Iraqis. I submit that many more have died since then. I think you are exagerating the number of soldiers we kept in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and in any event this was far less expensive than having our soldiers tied down in Iraq under the current scenario.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the problem inherently exhibited in that response Hank, is that containment wasn't working. Saddam continued to be the preeminent force for destabilisation in the region.

Three quotes:



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |

indeed.

Nice work P, but forget, don't you, this part of Clinton policy......

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 HR 4655

http://www.library.cornell.edu/coll...east/libera.htm