Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The attacks in 1996 were over the occupation of Irbil. Those in 1998, long warned of, were over non-cooperation with UNSCOM.
I would say Bush gave Hussein an even longer warning period than Clinton and most of the bruhaha was over the failure of Sadam to comply with inspection processes. Both presidents gave Sadam tons of warnings, and then made their attacks. I've said it before and I'll say it again, at least Clinton was a little more responsible than launching an all out war.
Exactly. And Clinton played along in all the same nonsense rhetoric as the Republicans have.
No. Two differences: There was a direct provocation that called for a response. The facilities identified and attacked by Clinton were actually there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
So Clinton's military mistake was smaller, and he wasn't in office long enough to continue his policies and get hammered by the press for years. Really thats the only difference.
Excuse me. Clinton's attacks were quick strikes. Over and done within a matter of hours. Getting one of seven targets wrong in one such retaliatory strike, is not in any way comparable to launching a full-scale pre-emptive invasion after manufacturing the thing supposedly to be pre-empted. Clinton's liability is that of a mistake in judgement. Bush's liability is effectively that of a war criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
Both sides have shown they don't mind lying, and Hillary is looking to get into office, continue the war, and go into Iran if she thinks its necessary. So she will continue playing games with the American public should she be elected, just as Bill did, and just as Bush has. No difference from one party to the other IMO.
There is a very big difference between the two parties, and to see it, one need only ask if we are better off today than we were seven years ago. Otherwise, you are speculating and no more. If I were asked to speculate, I would have a different answer from yours.
Excuse me. Clinton's attacks were quick strikes. Over and done within a matter of hours. Getting one of seven targets wrong in one such retaliatory strike, is not in any way comparable to launching a full-scale pre-emptive invasion after manufacturing the thing supposedly to be pre-empted. Clinton's liability is that of a mistake in judgement. Bush's liability is effectively that of a war criminal.
What I understand you saying is that it was ok for Clinton to attack without getting the necessary UN resolutions and without getting Congresss approval, but Bush committed a crime because he went through the necessary steps to make it a legal attack, and got I believe around 50 countries to join us ahead of time?
I think you have it backwards.. Please explain if I'm mis-understanding you..
I'm sure I'll be dinged again for simply responding to your posting.. oh well..
I would say Bush gave Hussein an even longer warning period than Clinton and most of the bruhaha was over the failure of Sadam to comply with inspection processes.
Inspectors all over Iraq. Good enough for Hans Blix. Reams of papers submitted. Not good enough for George Bush. The matter of non-compliance is not material unless there was a way to comply. Otherwise, it's just more excusifying.
Yep.. Give points to those you agree with, then ding those who make points you dont agree with.. boo hoo hoo..
You know what they say, when you cant argue facts, you attack the messenger.. I feel honored to be attacked..
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
Well if it makes you feel any better, I got a hit and run for being "off topic" also. So chicken reppers abound around here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
Don't feel bad, I got a hit and run red repper yet again. I wonder if they equally red rep people that are off topic who they agree with. I doubt it.
Anyway, my post about the VX nerve gas was a direct response to another post in this thread. If I'm off topic, I ain't the only one.....
Since the thread topic was Rush Limbaugh you could make a complaint to a Sr Mod saying that since Rush never stays "on-topic" you were also doing so in homage to him. It probably won't work, but it would be kinda funny to see MarkaBlue's reaction to 3 identical requests for rep reversal!
Anyway, I was ding'd a while ago for being OT as well so I have tried to always have at least a portion of my post be about the OP (even if it is just a sentence) as a way to insulate.... Watch, I'll probably be getting a neg rep for posting that!
Since the thread topic was Rush Limbaugh you could make a complaint to a Sr Mod saying that since Rush never stays "on-topic" you were also doing so in homage to him. It probably won't work, but it would be kinda funny to see MarkaBlue's reaction to 3 identical requests for rep reversal!
Anyway, I was ding'd a while ago for being OT as well so I have tried to always have at least a portion of my post be about the OP (even if it is just a sentence) as a way to insulate.... Watch, I'll probably be getting a neg rep for posting that!
hahaha... I needed a goopd laugh at this time of night.. thanks..
Mistake by Clinton. There was not sufficient confirmed evidence to justify that strike. The six sites in Afghanistan, certainly, but not the one in Sudan. But some form of retaliation (or wag-the-dog diversion from more important matters, if you were a Republican) was called for after the embassy bombings. Clinton simply didn't set the bar high enough in approving the Sudan strike.
Oh, I get it. When it's Clinton, it's a "mistake." When it's Bush, it's he "lied." Are you serious?
Yellow cake. Aliuminum tubes. The Feith Memo. Everything that ever came out of the Bat Cave. Curveball. Mobile labs. 45 minutes. Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven, and the Bushies were spreading a whole lot of love around.
Again, the Democrats were making the same or similar claims in the '90s.
Quote:
No they didn't, and they still don't. You have to misunderstand the nature of your government to make such a claim.
You are wrong... they did have access to the information. Just accept that fact.
Quote:
Government revenue increases if you do nothing at all. The dynamic duo of inflation and population growth, you know. The claim is that tax cuts somehow increase government revenues over and above what they would have been in the absence of the tax cuts. This is a claim that can be, and has been, analyzed and tested. There is no basis to it. There is in the case of JFK's cuts a slight and delayed increase in revenues not resulting from other causes. Supply-siders claim to be able to reproduce this effect at will. They have failed in every attempt to do so. No such thing happened with Reagan. No such thing happened with Bush. In each case, tax cuts caused revenue to fall below what it would have been without the tax cuts
Inflation is usually factored in. The revenue has been increasing the last several years. Look it up!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.