Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This does not compute.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:25 PM
Original message
This does not compute.
Iraq was a major concern during the Clinton presidency. As I recall, we were shooting at the Iraqi air force on a regular basis when their planes entered no fly zones.

If Hillary Clinton was as tuned in to the operations of Bill CLinton's presidency as she says she was, she should have had a fair idea of what was going on there.

The Bush Administration faked up the intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

Why didn't Hillary Clinton holler bullshit when George Bush was lying to the American people?

Either she didn't know he was lying, in which case what does that tell us about her White House experience?

OR

She knew he was lying and kept quiet.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. read her floor speech before the war vote in 2002
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Did Hillary connect Sadaam to 9/11 in this paragraph:
" And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am. "

Sure sounds that way to me.

I didn't know old Bill had been trying to overthrow Sadaam

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad"

You don't suppose fear of an invasion had anyhting to do with Sadamm exaggerating his stockpiles, do you?

IMO, this is the most telling section:

"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible. "

She knew the resolution did not require diplomacy, but she trusted Bush to use diplomacy. I knew Bush was going to take us to war ASAP, and I've only ever driven past the WHite House, not lived there 8 years!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. no, she stated clearly at the start
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Sounds like typical Bush administration double speak to me.
Acknowledge that Sadamm wasn't connected to 9/11 in one breath and make that connection in the next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'm not judging, just reporting n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I'd never read the entire speech before.. wow, and thanks..
She really covered both sides, didn't she? Talked about what a dangerous move it would be, what a dangerous precedent it would set, and then didn't see anyway she could NOT vote for it. Clever. Slick. In the end, she based her vote on "taking the word" of a man who saw NOTHING WRONG with stealing the Presidency of the United States. Judgement does matter.

"President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. They believed the lies, pushed the lies
were part of the lies, have covered up for the lies...

and are now pushing the lies about Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. "They" being who, specifically?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Bill, Hil and the rest of the Clinton crew n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. she knew he was lying
she just thought it would be a cakewalk - in other words, incredibly bad judgement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. Sometimes I think I have arrived...
way too late to this party. Breath-taking, convoluted, illogical scenarios seem to be the sole method politicians use to explain anything...and it seems they've been using this method for..well... for forever.
Seven Oil Wars to Control Iraq

Before coming to the Iraq war of 2003, we will review the modern history of conflicts over Iraq. There have been a total of seven wars in the past ninety years, all closely related to oil. What follows is a thumbnail sketch of those conflicts, to suggest the constant military struggle over this oil-rich territory.

1. Colonial Conquest (1914-18). The first conflict took place during World War I, when the British captured the area from the Ottoman Empire during a bloody four-year campaign. Lord Curzon, a member of the War cabinet who became Foreign Minister immediately after the war, famously stated that the influence of oil over British policy in Iraq was “nil.” “Oil,” said Curzon, “had not the remotest connection with my attitude over Mosul,” the major city in Iraq’s northern oil-bearing region.27 Studies by a number of historians have shown that Curzon was lying and that oil was indeed the major factor shaping British policy towards Iraq.28 Sir Maurice Hankey, Secretary of the War Cabinet, even insisted enthusiastically in a private cabinet letter that oil was a “first class war aim.”29 London had ordered its forces to continue fighting after the Mudros Armistice was signed, so as to gain control of Iraq’s main oil-producing region. Fifteen days later, the British army seized Mosul, capital of the oil region, blocking the aspirations of the French, to whom the area had been promised earlier in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement.30

2. War of Pacification (1918-1930). To defend its oil interests, Britain fought a long war of pacification in Iraq, lasting from 1918 throughout the next decade. The British crushed a country-wide insurrection in 1920 and continued to strike at insurgents with poison gas, airplanes, incendiary bombs, and mobile armored cars, using an occupation force drawn largely from the Indian Army. This carnage killed or wounded thousands of Iraqis, burning villages and extracting colonial taxes by brutal means. Winston Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, saw the defense of Iraq’s lucrative oil deposits as a test of modern weaponry and military-colonial use of force, enabling Britain to hold the oil fields at the lowest possible cost.31

3. Re-Occupation (1941). Though Britain granted nominal independence to Iraq in 1932, it maintained a sizeable military force and a large air base in the country and continued to rule “indirectly.” In 1941, fearful that Iraq might fall into the hands of the Axis, London again decided to seize direct control of the country through military force. Broad geo-strategic wartime goals drove this campaign, but not least was British concern to protect the Iraqi oil fields and keep them in British hands, free not only from German but also from US challenge.32

4. Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). In 1980, Iraq attacked its neighbor, Iran. A long war ensued through 1988, a savage conflict causing hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, costing tens of billions of dollars and destroying much of both countries’ oilfields and vital infrastructure. Foreign governments, interested in gaining geo-strategic advantage over both nations’ oil resources, promoted, encouraged and sustained the war, some arming both sides. The US and the UK supplied Iraq with arms, chemical and biological weapon precursors, military training, satellite targeting and naval support. Other powers participated as well, notably France, Germany and Russia.33 The big oil companies profited mightily, as war conditions kept Iraqi and Iranian oil off the market, driving worldwide prices substantially higher. By bankrupting the two governments and ruining their oil infrastructure, the war also potentially opened the way for the return of the companies through privatization in the not-too-distant future. But after the war, when Iraq and Iran turned to Japanese oil companies for new private investments, including a Japanese role in Iraq’s super-giant Majnoun field, the stage was set for yet another conflict.

5. Gulf War (1991). Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the US decided to intervene militarily and Washington assembled a number of secondary military partners, including the UK and France. As US President George Bush summed up the oil-centered threat posed by Saddam Hussein at the time: “Our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom and the freedom of friendly countries around the world would all suffer if control of the world’s great oil reserves fell into the hands of Saddam Hussein.”34 US forces heavily bombed Iraqi cities and military installations and then launched a short and decisive ground war, ending the Iraqi occupation of its neighbor. The war badly battered Iraq, destroying much of its electricity and water purification systems and claiming 50-100,000 casualties.

6. Low Intensity Conflict During the Sanction Period (1991-2003). After the armistice, the UN’s pre-war embargo continued, because the US-UK used their Security Council vetoes to block its lifting. The sanctions imposed a choke-hold on Iraq’s economy, restricted oil sales and kept the country’s oil industry in a shambles. By blocking foreign investment and preventing reconstruction, the sanctions further ruined the country’s economic base. At the same time, with Iraqi supplies largely off the market, international oil prices were supported and company profits benefited. The US and the UK declared their goal to oust Saddam and their intelligence services made many efforts to assassinate him or to overthrow his government by military coup. The US-UK also established “no-fly” zones in much of Iraqi airspace, using air patrols to launch periodic attacks on Iraqi military targets. Four times, the US-UK launched major attacks, using scores of strike aircraft and cruise missiles – in January 1993, January 1996, June 1996 and December 1998. Though oil companies from a number of other countries negotiated with the Iraqi government for production deals, none dared to challenge the sanctions (and the Anglo-American companies) by beginning production under such risky circumstances.

7. Iraq War (2003). This war, launched by the US in spite of strong opposition at the UN, overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein and brought the US-UK coalition into direct rule over Iraq and in direct control of the oil fields. The war caused further deterioration of Iraq’s infrastructure, many casualties, and a chaotic and dysfunctional economy. Though the coalition rules Iraq, it has faced a tough armed resistance during many months following the main conflict. War number eight, the coalition’s war of pacification, has already begun.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm


The Saga of Hog Island,1917-1921: The Story of the First Great War Boondoggle1
by James J. Martin
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/hogisle.shtml

http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/0303socialcriticism.html
THE RICH AND THE SUPER-RICH. Copyright 1968 by Ferdinand Lundberg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC