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.
So Clinton had broad international support and Bush didnt when they attacked Iraq? Lets count the support shall wel
Clinton had JUST Great Britain join him..
It was a 4-day, all-air attack. Should the US and UK (already positioned in the area) have waited around for folks like Tonga to develop an air force?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Bush had 38+ countries
Right. The proud partners of the Coailition of the Willing. Macedonia (35 people), Estonia (33 people), Kazakhstan (29 people), Moldova (24 people), and Iceland (2 people). Basically, you have a lot of eastern european countries who didn't want to jeopardize their chances for NATO membership sending in less than a schoolbus load of people, some Latin American countries (El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic) who worried about their economic aid packages being cut if they didn't go along, and some countries like Singapore who got major trade concessions out of the deal. So that's how willing folks were -- they had to be bribed or blackmailed into it. As was posted earlier, the personnel of only four countries had orders that allowed them to be involved in hositilities of any sort -- the US, the UK, Australia, and Poland. The peak numbers for these in the early years were 250,000 US (83%) -- 45,000 UK (15%) -- 2,000 AS (0.7%) -- 2,500 PL (0.8%). The current numbers are 154,000 US (96%) -- 4,500 UK (3%) -- 1,000 AS (0.6%) -- 900 PL (0.6%). Quite the coalition alright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
In that whole posting, I dont see the AUTHORIZATION for desert fox. Please point it out.
There was no authorization for Desert Fox. The Security Council was divided on the nature of the appropriate response. Likewise with our Arab allies. There was no debate over the need for a response...merely over the form that it should take. Clinton, for sensitivity reasons, did not want to bomb Iraq during Ramadan. So he in concert with the UK took the low-scale, at-least-this, option of limited tactical airstrikes against previously identified Iraqi facilities, and was able to get the mission up and down before the onset of the Muslim holidays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Try again
Try what again.
Last edited by saganista; 12-23-2007 at 08:54 AM..
It was a 4-day, all-air attack. Should the US and UK (already positioned in the area) have waited around for folks like Tonga to develop an air force?
So we're back to the original point.. its ok for Clinton to attack a country UNPROVOKED, WITHOUT authorization? How about when he attacked Iraq June 27th, 1993? AGAIN, unprovoked, WITHOUT authorization.
Right. The proud partners of the Coailition of the Willing. Macedonia (35 people), Estonia (33 people), Kazakhstan (29 people), Moldova (24 people), and Iceland (2 people). Basically, you have a lot of eastern european countries who didn't want to jeopardize their chances for NATO membership sending in less than a schoolbus load of people, some Latin American countries (El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic) who worried about their economic aid packages being cut if they didn't go along, and some countries like Singapore who got major trade concessions out of the deal. So that's how willing folks were -- they had to be bribed or blackmailed into it. As was posted earlier, the personnel of only four countries had orders that allowed them to be involved in hositilities of any sort -- the US, the UK, Australia, and Poland. The peak numbers for these in the early years were 250,000 US (83%) -- 45,000 UK (15%) -- 2,000 AS (0.7%) -- 2,500 PL (0.8%). The current numbers are 154,000 US (96%) -- 4,500 UK (3%) -- 1,000 AS (0.6%) -- 900 PL (0.6%). Quite the coalition alright.
Doesnt change the fact that these countries CHOSE to join us, and CHOSE to help. Lets count the numbers under Clinton
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, oooh thats right.. NO SUPPORT, NO AUTHORIZATION
There was no authorization for Desert Fox. The Security Council was divided on the nature of the appropriate response. Likewise with our Arab allies. There was no debate over the need for a response...merely over the form that it should take. Clinton, for sensitivity reasons, did not want to bomb Iraq during Ramadan. So he in concert with the UK took the low-scale, at-least-this, option of limited tactical airstrikes against previously identified Iraqi facilities, and was able to get the mission up and down before the onset of the Muslim holidays.
Wow, how terrible that we attacked a country when the Security Council was DIVIDED, but yet you criticize us for attacking the very same country when they were not divided. Explain to me exactly what Iraq did to the USA that authorized Clintons attack?
Try what again.
Try again at making the argument that it was ok for Clinton to attack and not ok for Bush.. There isnt one argument you can use that authorized Clinton to attack that you cant use to authorize Bush.
Lets try to be consistant, I know its tough, but I have faith that you can at least try.
Actually its 100% responsive to the response.. You having trouble following your own statements now?
ME: It doesnt take brain scientists to know that the CIA video tapes their interrogations because even at the local level interrogations are all video taped because they become a matter of evidence when you put an individual on trial.
Its also a matter of CIA policy (per Hayden) to video tape all interrogations, why would this one be any different then any other interrogation? (which started this whole debate because someone requested a copy of the tapes, after finding out it was "policy" to record them all)
YOU: Not that this at all answers the question of how Bush can claim not to have known about the tapes until 16 days ago, but it is a fact that statements made under duress are not admissable as evidence at a trial. Anybody's trial.
Oddly, the various tapes were different enough to have been withheld from the 9/11 Commission, from the lawyers for Moussaoui, and from lawyers representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, all of whom had standing requests and/or preserve orders that would have covered them. It doesn't sound like these were some run of the mill old tapes to me...
ME: Never did I excuse the holding back of this tape nor am I excusing the destruction of such tape. Dont imply that I stated or implied that either would be ok.
YOU: Some other things that weren't either stated or implied were the answers to questions such as how did Bush not know of the tapes until two years after the world knew, and why, if these were garden variety tapes, they were not provided or even preserved in response to legal requests that would have covered them.
I know its hard to follow along but try really hard. All of this goes into circle back to where I NEVER stated that Bush did not know of the tapes and in fact, I sighted evidence that Bush had to know about the tapes, i.e. CIA POLICY TO RECORD ALL INTERROGATIONS. You then questioned how Bush claimed to not know about the tapes, when in fact I NEVER stated that he didnt know about the tapes.
Do you have this uncontrollable urge to just argue with people that AGREE with you?
Your the one accusing Bush of violating laws.. not me. You dont know what laws your accusing him of violating?
I have explained and documented in some detail the errors made in several statements made by others relating to such matters as a supposed UN authorization for the 2003 Iraq invasion, a proposition that Bush relied on the same intelligence as Clinton in coming to his conclusions on Iraq, and the idea that the world knew in 2005 of the destroyed CIA tapes when Bush himself says he did not know of them until Dec 2007.
You have made references to laws apparently created during the Clinton administration that Bush may have violated, indicating that Clinton may have violated them as well. I was merely asking which laws those were, as they have not been specifically referenced that I have seen.
Considering the Oil-for-Food scandal, I doubt that many on the U.N. Security Council would vote to eliminate their cash cow, Saddam Hussein. In that light, the UNSC vote against the invasion was illegitimate and unnecessary.
The OFF scandals amounted to peanuts. The fuel delivery overcharges by Halliburton et al were a bigger deal, and those were a one-of-many operation...
[quote=pghquest;2321172][i] All of this goes into circle back to where I NEVER stated that Bush did not know of the tapes and in fact, I sighted evidence that Bush had to know about the tapes, i.e. CIA POLICY TO RECORD ALL INTERROGATIONS.
And yet Bush is pulling out the "I have no recollection" card.
Do you think he is lying, or could he be so incompetent he just completely forgot about their existence? Too much on his plate maybe??
U.S. President George W. Bush "has no recollection" of videotapes of CIA interrogations of some al Qaeda suspects or of plans to destroy the tapes, a White House spokeswoman said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning."
So we're back to the original point.. its ok for Clinton to attack a country UNPROVOKED, WITHOUT authorization? How about when he attacked Iraq June 27th, 1993? AGAIN, unprovoked, WITHOUT authorization.
We may be back to the point of you're not seeing a difference between a 4-day tactical response to provocations carried out with broad international support, and a 5-year state of total war carried out for no legitimate reason and against broad international criticism.
The supposedly unprovoked attacks of June 1993 were against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service as a direct response to its plans to assassinate George H.W. Bush. UN authorization is not needed for actions taken in self-defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Doesnt change the fact that these countries CHOSE to join us, and CHOSE to help. Lets count the numbers under Clinton 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, oooh thats right.. NO SUPPORT, NO AUTHORIZATION
Your definition of the word choose seems to be different from that of most folks. Similalrly, with support. Tactical support in Desert Fox was not needed. Support for a response in light of Iraq's provocations was plentiful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wow, how terrible that we attacked a country when the Security Council was DIVIDED, but yet you criticize us for attacking the very same country when they were not divided.
As I explaiend earlier, the SC was divided in 2003 as well. The US/UK 'second resolution' was not going to pass. That's why it was withdrawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Explain to me exactly what Iraq did to the USA that authorized Clintons attack?
Been there. Done that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Try again at making the argument that it was ok for Clinton to attack and not ok for Bush.. There isnt one argument you can use that authorized Clinton to attack that you cant use to authorize Bush.
I haven't made any of the cases. There is no case to be made re the 1993 IIS attack. Self-defense is a right. There is a case to be made against Clinton in 1998 that he jumped the gun in his desire to avoid enflaming Muslims by attacking during the month of Ramadan. It's a technical case. A case can not only be made against Bush, it can hardly be avoided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Lets try to be consistant, I know its tough, but I have faith that you can at least try.
I have consistently remained level-headed and stuck to the facts. You have consistently argued in other ways.
Actually its 100% responsive to the response.. You having trouble following your own statements now?
No, my own seem quite logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I know its hard to follow along but try really hard. All of this goes into circle back to where I NEVER stated that Bush did not know of the tapes and in fact, I sighted evidence that Bush had to know about the tapes, i.e. CIA POLICY TO RECORD ALL INTERROGATIONS. You then questioned how Bush claimed to not know about the tapes, when in fact I NEVER stated that he didnt know about the tapes.
Briefly, you stated that the whole world was aware of the tapes in 2005. Bush has stated that he first learned of them on Dec 6, 2007. These two statements are in tension. One or the other of them is wrong. You could establish your version simply by posting a reference to the tapes that is dated 2005 or even 2006.
You have stated that the tapes are normal tapes of interrogations, similar to many others. Yet these tapes in particular were not only withheld from response to legal orders that would appear to have covered them, but they were then destroyed. Again, there is tension, tension that is not explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Do you have this uncontrollable urge to just argue with people that AGREE with you?
No, I like facts and arguments that connect facts in a logical way to produce credible, valid, testable conclusions. When people omit facts or combine them with non-facts, or when people connect these in ways that are anything from misguided to deliberately deceptive, I often do feel an urge to take objection to it. And from time to time, I act on that urge.
And yet Bush is pulling out the "I have no recollection" card. Do you think he is lying, or could he be so incompetent he just completely forgot about their existence? Too much on his plate maybe??
I think it's quite possible that he didn't know of the tapes until earlier this month. It would hardly be the first time that something was withheld from a higher-up in order to protect his ability to claim clean-hands later on and to do so with honesty.
I also think it's quite possible that Bush is lying through his teeth. He has nothing left to lose at this point by doing so, and as Harriet Miers fingerprints are all over this case, it would be easy to assume that she would have at least noted the matter at some point in their various conversations.
All in all, I don't think enough information is available to reach a decision either way on that point, but from what is known so far, the whole affair does have a kind of a clank to 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.
