Washington Post Editorial that makes lots of sense.

CoastalRat wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Larry, I understand your point of view, just understand that to me, what Clinton did was akin to jaywalking. Just my opinion.

As for Bush, I think you will see when the final report comes out after the election that his policies and behavior shaped the intelligence to bolster his case. And it's hard not to notice that even the wrong intelligence was pretty thin. It's pretty clear that this war was desired, not just by him, from before he even took the oath of office.

I'm curious Free. How is it pretty clear that this war was desired by him (and others) even before he took the oath of office? What evidence from prior to 9/11 do you use to base that opinion on?

I ask because prior to his taking the oath of office I do not remember anyone, media, democrat politician, or whoever, warning us or reporting that he wanted to go to war with Iraq. And since you seem pretty sure he did, I really would like to know what evidence you have for it.

CR, I'm referring to what McG is also referring to, and that is the Project for a New American Century. If you look at who is involved in that you will recognize a lot of names. There is also Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War, where it's obvious that Bush's advisors are trying to get him to immediately attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. I believe Rumsfeld said something to the effect of they should attack Iraq and not Afghanistan because there weren't any good targets in Afghanistan.

Whether or not you agree with PNAC, as McG does and I don't, you have to recognize that there were intentions to do this before the rest of us were told anything about it.

0 Replies

I can agree that there may have been intentions to do this before we (the American public) were told about it. What I question is how anyone can say with any authority that attacking Iraq was desired by Bush and others prior to his even being in office. Evidence for that is non-existent. At least to my knowledge, which is why I asked you about what you base that opinion on. In otherwords, I am admitting ignorance about the evidence for this belief you state and would like to read whatever it is that you use to base your statement on.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Larry, I understand your point of view, just understand that to me, what Clinton did was akin to jaywalking. Just my opinion.

As for Bush, I think you will see when the final report comes out after the election that his policies and behavior shaped the intelligence to bolster his case. And it's hard not to notice that even the wrong intelligence was pretty thin. It's pretty clear that this war was desired, not just by him, from before he even took the oath of office.

Why did Bill Clinton believe Saddam was a threat? Because PNAC told him to?

Believing he is a threat is not akin to actively seeking ways to invade and occupy the country.

I am sure Clinton had a plan to invade Iraq. He also had plans to invade Cuba, N. Korea, China, and a bunch of other countries. He also had plans in case some one attacked us and how to defend against them. Having a plan and being afraid to act on a plan are 2 different things. Clinton saw what happened in Bosnia. I believe he was not trigger happy after that affair. Also, he believed his foriegn policy would prevail. 9/11 demostrates the failure of Clinton's foreign policy.

Bush, like him or not, has shown the courage and conviction neccessary to not only evict the Taliban from supporting terrorism, but had demonstrated the US will no longer be trifled with. We are a world power and we'll be damned before we let some piss ant little war mongering terrorist f*ck with us!

0 Replies

Quote:

How is it pretty clear that this war was desired by him?

www.newamericancentury.org

Remember, it's not just Bush, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz. I find it telling that while people will jump to defend the presdient, there is little voice of defense given for the people who really make our policies; namely, the senior staff of the president.

The Iraq invasion was the first thing on their minds when they took office, was the first thing they wanted to be briefed on by the outgoing staff.

Many of the people who wrote articles with titles for the PNAC such as 'How to fight Iraq and Win' or 'Why we must depose Hussein' back in 98-99 are now making the policies for our country.

This is clear evidence that the war in Iraq has been pre-meditated for a long time by those who are in power now. Ask yourself, and I'm not trying to be partisan, just realistic: is this really surprising?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

We are a world power and we'll be damned before we let some piss ant little war mongering terrorist f*ck with us!

Great attitude there. And you wonder why terrorism is such a problem....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

I am sure Clinton had a plan to invade Iraq. He also had plans to invade Cuba, N. Korea, China, and a bunch of other countries. He also had plans in case some one attacked us and how to defend against them. Having a plan and being afraid to act on a plan are 2 different things. Clinton saw what happened in Bosnia. I believe he was not trigger happy after that affair. Also, he believed his foriegn policy would prevail. 9/11 demostrates the failure of Clinton's foreign policy.

Having plans and having intentions are two different things. I think it is not accurate to signify 9/11 as a symbol of Clinton's foreign policy, but I will leave this for discussion when the rest of the 9/11 report comes out.

Quote:

Bush, like him or not, has shown the courage and conviction neccessary to not only evict the Taliban from supporting terrorism, but had demonstrated the US will no longer be trifled with. We are a world power and we'll be damned before we let some piss ant little war mongering terrorist f*ck with us!

So what kept us from bringing that piss ant little war mongering terrorist to justice? Bush is all swagger. He chose this foreign policy, which was already written, because he had none of his own. I don't particularly care for Bush as a representative of the American people, but I don't blame only him. The problem is that he is a weak president as he was a weak governor and this allows people who were not elected to manipulate American policy by manipulating him. I think that's dangerous.

0 Replies

CR, Cyclop has posted a link to what I was talking about, so I won't duplicate. Have a read, I'm curious what you think of it.

0 Replies

Thanks for the link Cy. I have not read everything at the site (obviously), but what I have read would lead to the conclusion that their were those who indeed believed that war would be necessary in Iraq. In fact, most of what I have read so far would make a strong argument for the need to go to war. But none of what I read indicates a "desire" to go to war with Iraq. There is a difference. And if Free had said that Bush, and many others (including many democrats, btw), believed war would be necessary, then I would never have questioned his statement. But wanted to go to war? I still cannot agree with that one.

0 Replies

Well, I don't expect you to agree with me completely. To me, the very fact that they were actively engaged in pushing this agenda indicates that they wanted to go to war. They tried to get Clinton to do it. I don't know why anyone would go to so much trouble trying to shape policy if they didn't want this to happen. Whether or not their assessment of a need to go to war was correct, and I'm sure we'll disagree on this one, it's clear they were banging the drums.

0 Replies

Do you remember the 9/12/01 Rumsfeld quote where he said 'Don't tell me about Afghanistan. Tell me about Iraq. There's lots of good targets in Iraq.'

The simple fact is that if those at the top didn't desire a war in Iraq, we wouldn't have gone. Period. There is every bit of evidence that they had been planning it for years. There is every evidence that they rushed into the war. These are not actions that you see taken by people 'preparing for possibilities.'

I understand your pointing out the difference between desire and necessity, but there was no necessity for the president to hype the WMD threat the way he did. None whatsoever. If going to war in Iraq was truly necessary, without the threat of WMD (which is what conservatives claim now) then there should have been no reason to hype that particular claim up...

Except for the fact that it made people very, very scared. That is not an action taken by someone who is working out of 'necessity.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

We may disagree a bit, but I do see your point of view and to some degree could even agree with you. Now how's that for an open-minded conservative? Smile

0 Replies

Whadya know? And it's not even a full moon.

0 Replies

You know you've always been my favorite conservative poster here, CR.

I would like to make it clear that solving problems, not laying blame, is what I would prefer to discuss on this board. I think if more Americans focused on solutions, we'd get so much more done.

It's just that criticising is so much easier(and fun).....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yeah Free, ya really gotta watch me on a full moon. I actually turn into a liberal and start howling at the moon. Hehe.

Cy, it is true that it is so much easier and admittedly fun (most of the time) to criticize. Otherwise I doubt there would be so many posters sticking around here.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I am sure Clinton had a plan to invade Iraq. He also had plans to invade Cuba, N. Korea, China, and a bunch of other countries. He also had plans in case some one attacked us and how to defend against them. Having a plan and being afraid to act on a plan are 2 different things. Clinton saw what happened in Bosnia. I believe he was not trigger happy after that affair. Also, he believed his foriegn policy would prevail. 9/11 demostrates the failure of Clinton's foreign policy.

Bush, like him or not, has shown the courage and conviction neccessary to not only evict the Taliban from supporting terrorism, but had demonstrated the US will no longer be trifled with. We are a world power and we'll be damned before we let some piss ant little war mongering terrorist f*ck with us!

Well...that's one way of describing what happened.

Actually, I prefer:

Bush, the incompetent, shoot-for-the-hip, get that bastard who dissed my dad, moron...now in the Oval Office...

...was willing to trash 230 years of Ameican precedents and has now created a situation of almost epic counterproductive proportions.

The world is now less safe because of the rashness of the moron...and this election is a chance to get the keys back from the inmates.

0 Replies

Washington Post Editorial that makes lots of sense.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know