With the same intelligence reports CLINTON DID NOT GO TO WAR!

[glarius]

I just heard it again for the umpteenth time..."Bill Clinton had the same intelligence reports as Bush", says the Republican shill on CNN, suggesting that Clinton and Bush are interchangeable....His name is Phil Kent and he wrote a book called "The dark side of liberalism"...He's debating Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Why did she not say that CLINTON DID NOT GO TO WAR!!!...Whenever this comparison is made between Clinton and Bush, I wait for the Democrat to point out that Clinton knew Saddam was being contained, and didn't go to war, but THEY NEVER DO!...WHY??

P.S....The Dems seem to let so many missed opportunities slip by!

[lancdem]

1. What I find amusing is that the RW hates Clinton

so why are they using him to defend Bush? They don't like what he does any other time, but now he's suddenly their best buddy.

[glarius]

4. You answered your own question "they're using him to defend Bush"

But they don't complete the comparison....Clinton did not go to war!!

[Demonaut]

7. You forgot September 11, .....had this occurred during the Clinton

pres it would have been another matter, George Bush has been to war, Clinton has not...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................lol, just kidding!

[polmaven]

13. When President Clinton left office

The towers were still standing....I know, I know...the argument they will then use is "The plan to attack just wasn't ready yet"...Of course it wasn't....Because the Clinton administration was PAYING ATTENTION!!!!

...And furthermore, it should be pointed out, if President Clinton's attention had not been distracted by all the accusations, impeachment, and various and sundry outrages, things like the embassy bombings and The Cole may well have never happened either.

We never seem to point out that the republicans rail about bombing an aspirin factory and not killing Osama before leaving office.....Um, excuse me, Mr. (p)resident, thank you for bringing that mad man to justice so efficiently...oh...wait.....

[lovedems]

2. The same argument holds true with the "the rest of the world thought

Saddam had weapons, it wasn't just our intelligence". Well, the rest of the world didn't want to go to war. Hence the unilateral approach.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Because Clinton wanted to go to war

He was bombing installations in Iraq on one of the big impeachment news days.

[madmom]

5. Clinton didn't go to war

yes but if you remember correctly they called this "wag the dog"

[lancdem]

11. But it never mushroomed into a full-scale invasion

And I think it's safe to say he probably wouldn't have gone to war without alienating the rest of the world like Bush.

[stopthegop]

6. like it or not..

Sept. 11, 2001 changed things...especially how Americans see the use of force...if Clinton had been President on 9-12-01 there's no way to know what he would have done...

[Bridget Burke]

9. If he'd been president on 9/12/01,

It probably would just have been another day.

With the Congress out to get him & the WTC full of people doing their jobs.

[stopthegop]

10. sure...they planned it in 9 months...

that makes sense

[NewJeffCT]

15. no

I'm sure the planning took longer than 9 months. However, if Clinton (or Gore) had been president, the Hart-Rudman report would not have been ignored and allowed to sit on a desk... if Clinton (or Gore) had been president, the first defense priority of the nation would have been getting bin Laden and stopping terrorism, not Star Wars and withdrawing from missile treaties... if Clinton (or Gore) had been president, the special forces that were ready to roll and catch bin Laden would not have been called back... if Clinton (or Gore) had been president, the cruise missile ships off the coast, ready to launch at bind Laden, would not have been called back.

[stopthegop]

18. maybe...but we don't know...

that's the point...it's like saying "Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened with a Republican in the White House."...it may be true, but it can't be proven...it's speculation

But the point I was making is that 9-11 changed the rules...for whoever is in the White House

[glarius]

20. You sound like you're buying Bush's contention that Iraq is connected to

9/11....He's been using that lie as an excuse and has convinced a large part of the American population....:)

[stopthegop]

21. no...just saying the rules changed..

so you can't compare directly

[glarius]

22. Are you saying that you think Clinton's answer to 9/11 would be to go

to war against Iraq? That's the impression I get from your quote "if Clinton had been President on 9-12-01 there's no way to know what he would have done"...Sorry I just don't agree....Clinton is too sane a person to react in that way....IMO

[stopthegop]

23. as I said..there's no telling ..

have a good evening

[glarius]

24. Now I know why you're confused...it's not even close to being evening!

LOL....No hard feelings...:)

[stopthegop]

25. same to you..

but how do you know it's not evening where I am? hmmmmm?

[glarius]

28. If you're anywhere on mainland North America it's not evening.....

I get the feeling you're not in Hawaii or Europe or Asia....Oh well...Have a nice day anyway...:)

[stopthegop]

26. dupe post

my apologies

[zbdent]

17. Let's see, in 1996, there was a bag with a bomb in it that blew up

at the Olympic Games.

12/31/1999-1/1/2000, the biggest New Year's Eve celebration in a very long time. Probably the biggest security logistical nightmare Clinton and the home forces had to deal with.

Seems to me that it would be a lot easier to blast a huge crowd (in one of countless locations) than it is to hijack some planes. Especially with a "suitcase nuke" or a "dirty bomb".

Oh, and don't forget that Clinton was not actively negating (or backing out of) many treaties and agreements with other nations.

[zbdent]

19. And, don't forget, Clinton was supposed to stop two guys in a rubber

raft from bombing the USS Cole. Yet he got blamed for that failure.

This was the last terrorist act that Clinton had to deal with, and that was also masterminded by Osama, right?

[aquart]

8. OK, but Clinton wasn't trying to become Emperor of the MidEast.

So. Different goals, different results.

[glarius]

12. Clinton sees America in the overall picture....as a part of the world as

opposed to Bush who only sees things in terms of America....Clinton's wisdom would have kept things in hand without going to unilateral war....IMO....

[nannygoat]

14. Surprisingly, DeeDee Myers made just this point on Hardball

last night on a panel with Tweety, Scarborough (R-Dead Intern) and another person who I didn't recognize. Of course, Scarborough tried to drown out Myers repeated attempts to make this point.

Edited to add:

Plus the other piece of this is that there hadn't been any UN weapons inspectors in Iraq since 1998 and it seems to me an awful lot can happen in 5 years (from 1998 to the 2003 invasion).

[glarius]

16. That's just it....the Dems seem to always get drowned out even when they

do try to make the point...WHY DON'T THEY SHOUT OVER THE REPUBS just as they are being shouted over?...I guess they're just too civil...

[loudnclear]

27. What do you mean there were no inspectors in Iraq from 1998 to 2003?

They weren't needed. And it's lie that Saddam kicked them out. They left on their own because they felt Saddam was not cooperating or more accurately the US RW politics told them to get out. But just before we invaded UN inspectors were there (Blix) and they were telling us that we were not on sound grounds claiming the WMDs were there and capable of being launched in minutes or that the Iraqi threat to the US was "imminent" "grave" "likely" or whatever you want to call it.

[nannygoat]

29. Sorry, you're right about there being ones there right before the

invasion in 2002 and 2003 trying to do their job (I guess I had a George * moment when he said that Saddam wouldn't allow the inspectors in there). However, I didn't say Saddam kicked them out I think what happened was that Clinton pulled them out, didn't he?

[niceypoo]

30. Clinton didnt have 2003 intel

Bush did....if Bush chose to ignore it and instead went with 97 the intel he should be flogged and sent to the hague and forgotten in some dungeon.

:spank:

[Taeger]

31. REALISTICALLY

Even though PNAC was urging Clinton to invade, the reality is that he didn't have ANY domestic support for military campaigns. The Republicans spent so much time telling everyone that Clinton could not lead the military.

Clinton could NOT have gotten a resolution from Congress that would have allowed him to start a pre-emptive war. Not only this, but Clinton's own base didn't like the FIRST Gulf War.

Clinton did what he could. He built a fence around Saddam and bombed him every time he tried to make a move. He protected the Kurds in the north (partially) as a credible threat to Saddam.

All of the foreign military actions STARTED by Clinton were successes. All those Republicans leapt all over him over Somalia. But realistically, there is no way to save starving people when warlords were holding the country hostage.

We as a country have to temper our "humanitarian" instincts and realize that we have a limited ability to help people who DON'T WANT TO BE HELPED!!!!!

If you enter a civil war situation, YOU MUST TAKE SIDES. Otherwise, you'll be shot at from ALL directions. We are having this problem in Iraq right now. The resistance is coming from Shiites and Sunnis. If we don't support the Kurds autonomy (via a federal system) they will start killing American GIs as well.

[karabekian]

32. he just bombed them =/

n/c