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.
"Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction."
PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT October 31, 1998 The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release October 31, 1998 Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
Clinton was the president who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Guess how a government is overthrown? Hint: not by merely wishing it so.
Any number of ways. Fomenting internal dissatisfaction, for instance. Finding a viable opposition to support. Finding a viable opposition-in-exile to support. Arm rebels. Or invade, occupy and install a puppet government.
The invasion option being, of course, the most costly, the hardest to extricate from and ultimately unlikely to meet with success.
[i]"Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so.
See? Intelligence in a President. Arm the rebels. Don't roll in with tanks. Or if you must, don't botch the occupation horribly.
"Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction."
PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT October 31, 1998 The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release October 31, 1998 Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
So, let me get this straight, you're blaming Clinton for GWB's invasion of Iraq 5 years later. And for GWB's possible fabrication of "evidence" to get boots on the ground there?
And for GWB's possible fabrication of "evidence" to get boots on the ground there?
Fabrication?
First.....I could list a long list of Democrats that not only voted for the Iraq invasion, but also made impassioned speeches in favor of it.
Second....even the New York Times and Washington Post advocated for the war.
Third.....there was NO fabrication or massaging of the intelligence. The US Congress held several investigations into that question. The British also investigated that. ALL of the found no evidence of it.
The Silberman-Robb Report (an investigation demanded by Democrats) found nothing to the allegations.
Here's what US News and World Report had to say (reprinted on Real Clear Politics):
Quote:
To the charges that Bush "cherry-picked" intelligence, the commission co-chaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb found that the intelligence available to Bush but not to Congress was even more alarming than the intelligence Congress had.
The Silberman-Robb panel also concluded, after a detailed investigation, that in no instance did Bush administration authorities pressure intelligence officials to alter their findings.
Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. But Bush didn't lie about it.
Originally Posted by Willsson Saddam Hussein is gone, that was my goal. They're still there, they're everywhere, in the guise of the Bro'hood
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
You appear to mix up the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood with the mostly secular Baath'ism that Saddam Hussein espoused. You could get your booze on in Bagdad back when. The Muslim Brotherhood rather frowns on that.
My ref to the Bro'hood was as they being the WMD's... still alive, and in action. Hussein as the oppressor of his people.
Quote:
"Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction."
Clinton ordered a military strike against Iraq. How is that not an act of war?
US attacks against military installations are one thing, taking occupation of a country is quite different. Clinton, FHB, Reagan launched attacks on Libya and Iraq but they did not occupy and change the entire government. That is exactly why GHB and Clinton didn't send in permanent ground forces, the elder Bush actually wrote a book on why he wouldn't invade without an exit strategy.
So we get to write off the liberal media, unless they are complicit with GOP strategy. Got it.
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.
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.
