Hillary Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation - Page 3

nemein · 08-05-06, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman2

You don't really believe that. Another Democratic president enforced the sanctions and no-fly zones.

And under that president the calls from those other countries to lift sanctions grew and the interaction between those countries and Iraq grew. There's no way to tell what would have happened at this point but IMHO it was only a matter of time before "containment" (such as it was

) failed, or more realistically everyone actually acknowledged sanctions/"containment" weren't working.

classicman2 · 08-05-06, 05:06 PM

Where did I say they were duped?

What don't you attempt to respond to what I said?

If you believe that any congressman or any senator is privy to the same intelligence information that the president is, you're sadly mistaken. To say they had the 'complete' information that Bush had is nonsense.

nemein · 08-05-06, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman2

Where did I say they were duped?

I believe right here VVVVVV

Quote:

If you believe that any congressman or any senator is privy to the same intelligence information that the president is, you're sadly mistaken. To say they had the 'complete' information that Bush had is nonsense.

The implication is the admin selectively showed intel to the congress to get the vote they wanted, or are you trying to say something else

classicman2 · 08-05-06, 05:20 PM

I believe the administration didn't show all the intelligence to congress. I don't believe anyone can challenge the fact that the administration deliberately chose to highlight the intelligence that made the best case for invading Iraq and ignored other intelligence.

I stop short of saying that Bush lied.

I just don't believe he was entirely forthcoming - especially concerning the evidence of what proved to be Iraq's non-existent nuclear program.

nemein · 08-05-06, 05:22 PM

Quote:

I just don't believe he was entirely forthcoming - especially concerning the evidence of what proved to be Iraq's non-existence nuclear program.

So congress was duped, or maybe we just have different connotations of that word...

General Zod · 08-05-06, 05:23 PM

I would also like to know who selectively withheld information to Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton in 1998 when they came up with the same conclusion? Anyone?

I agree with you, Cman, that Bush did withhold some information. My contention is that it didn't matter in slightest. The same conclusions would have been reached. He just wanted to get everyone behind him as quickly as possible. Perhaps that was wrong of him, but I do think at the time he felt like ourselves and/or our allies were in danger from Saddam so he moved quickly. I don't fault him for that. I understand why there are those that do. Had things worked out differently he'd probably be getting thanked for his quick decision making. That's how it goes.

classicman2 · 08-05-06, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Zod

I would also like to know who selectively withheld information to Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton in 1998 when they came up with the same conclusion? Anyone?

I don't believe the intelligence concerning the fact that Iraqi had abandoned its' nuclear program was available in 1998.

In addition, Clinton didn't act on that intelligence with an ill-conceived war, did he?

General Zod · 08-05-06, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman2

I don't believe the intelligence concerning the fact that Iraqi had abandoned its' nuclear program was available in 1998.

Not sure.. Something spooked congress into writing that letter to Clinton "to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." So they had something.

Quote:

In addition, Clinton didn't act on that intelligence with an ill-conceived war, did he?

Non Sequitur. Clinton wasn't dealing with a public that just suffered a huge terrorist attack on our soil and wanted guarantees it wouldn't happen again. Perhaps under those circumstances he would have. Neither of us know for sure.

nemein · 08-05-06, 05:37 PM

Quote:

In addition, Clinton didn't act on that intelligence with an ill-conceived war, did he?

As long as we're talking hypotheticals here, the question that'll "really bake your noodle" is if he had shown some back bone during his admin would we have needed to go into Iraq at all? I don't mean back bone as in actually launching a war, but taking a tougher stance in supporting sanctions (and making them more realistic/non detremental to the Iraqies) when Framany/Russia started to back down from them (and putting in/petitioning for some sort of oversight that would have caught the Oil for Food corruption), taking a different response to the "Black Hawk Down" and USS Cole incidents, maybe even using a different approach or launching his own "War on Terrorism" after the first WTC bombing. Unfortunately we'll never know and we're stuck w/ the world we are creating.

Please don't think I'm handing off everything to Clinton either, there have been steps taken all along in the history of the US by the various admins that brings us to the point we are now. I don't think any particular action by any particular president can be pointed to as the single "thing" that brought us to where we are today since it's a continum and all of them played their part. There's no way to tell if one of them had done something differently how that would have played out for someone later.

classicman2 · 08-05-06, 05:42 PM

The fact remains Clinton didn't engage this country in an unnecessary war, did he?

classicman2 · 08-05-06, 05:44 PM

Side Note: I can see it all now - 20 years from now (if this forum still exists) some of our members (including those who have posted today) will still be blaming poor old Bill Clinton for the multitude of mistakes that George W. made.

On second thought - I probably won't see it.

nemein · 08-05-06, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman2

The fact remains Clinton didn't engage this country in an unnecessary war, did he?

I agree, Clinton didn't take the growing security challenges to this country seriously and was trying to cash in too much on the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War. Aka who's to judge whether a war is "necessary" or not? The Islamic fanatics appearantly already declared war on us during his admin (if not before thinking back to things done during the Reagan/Bush years). I guess a response to that wasn't necessary though uh?

nemein · 08-05-06, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman2

Side Note: I can see it all now - 20 years from now (if this forum still exists) some of our members (including those who have posted today) will still be blaming poor old Bill Clinton for the multitude of mistakes that George W. made.

On second thought - I probably won't see it.

And we'll still probably have people holding Clinton blameless for his part in bringing us to where we are today. Bush has certainly made his own share of mistakes as part of this continum, but that doesn't excuse Clinton for the role he played as well.

classicman2 · 08-05-06, 05:53 PM

I hold him blameless for the fiasco called Iraq.

He was not the CIC who sent over 2,500 Americans to their death for what reason? To spread democracy?

nemein · 08-05-06, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman2

I hold him blameless for the fiasco called Iraq.

Had Clinton done any number of things differently during his term Iraq may not have needed to happen, or more likely the situation would not have been there to allow it to happen the way it did. Yes the ultimate call/responsibility belongs to Bush, but Bush was playing w/ the hand dealt to him in part by Clinton who in turn was playing the hand dealt by the first Bush an so on. That's the point I'm trying to get to, each president doesn't start his term w/ a "new world" like starting a game from the beginning. They all have to work w/ what was given to them by previous admins. So while Clinton's direct "blame" for where we are in Iraq is certainly nowhere as great as Bush's I don't see how anyone who is looking at the situation realistically can hold him completely blameless. The only way to do that would be to suggest that Clinton and Iraq didn't exist in the same time/space continum and neither had any sort of action/reaction (or lack of action/reaction exacerbating the situation) w/ each other. Obviously this isn't the case so like it or not, for better or worse, Clinton had hand in creating the situation that led to the Iraq war and the situation we are in today w/ the larger WoT/Islamic extremists.

Quote:

To spread democracy?

I thought it was only about oil... oh yeah and revenge for daddy

classicman2 · 08-05-06, 06:42 PM

No, I was just commenting on the 'establish democracy' argument - a democracy that we don't like.

bhk · 08-05-06, 07:12 PM

It's fun to hear democrats arguing that the democrats that voted for authorization for the Iraq war are so stupid that they aren't responsible for their own actions, votes, letters, and speeches. At least that's honesty.

classicman2 · 08-05-06, 08:41 PM

I see. Congress is responsible for the actions that the president takes; but, the president is not responsible for those actions.

Congress doesn't command troops. Congress doesn't send troops to invade countries. The president does.

I understand that the Repubs & supporters of this war want to ignore that fact, because they realize what a failure this war has been.

BTW: Technically, the Democrats or Republicans in the Congress for that matter didn't vote for the War in Iraq. They authorized the president to use force.

It's even more amusing to see the Repubs trying desperately to lay the blame on other folks when they realize the blame lies with George W. Bush.

Does anyone seriously believe that Bush wouldn't have gone ahead with the invasion of Iraq if congress hadn't authorized the use of force?

VinVega · 08-05-06, 09:12 PM

I like the revisionist historians here who say Clinton didn't do anything to try to stop Iraq or radical Islam. He attacked Sudan. He attacked Afghanistan. He attacked Iraq. Most Republicans at the time said the missile strike on Afghanistan was a ploy to put Monica Lewinsky on the back pages of the paper. They say, he had no guts since it was a cruise missile attack and he didn't get his man, Osama Bin Laden. Well, we invaded Afghanistan, how's Bush doing at getting OBL? Oh yeah, we can't find him. Clinton had numerous foreign policy failures, but he didn't get us involved in an occupation of a ME country with no end in sight.

sracer · 08-05-06, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinVega

I like the revisionist historians here who say Clinton didn't do anything to try to stop Iraq or radical Islam. He attacked Sudan. He attacked Afghanistan. He attacked Iraq. Most Republicans at the time said the missile strike on Afghanistan was a ploy to put Monica Lewinsky on the back pages of the paper. They say, he had no guts since it was a cruise missile attack and he didn't get his man, Osama Bin Laden. Well, we invaded Afghanistan, how's Bush doing at getting OBL? Oh yeah, we can't find him. Clinton had numerous foreign policy failures, but he didn't get us involved in an occupation of a ME country with no end in sight.

That's an excellent observation... I had forgotten how many times the phrase "WAG THE DOG" was trotted out.

X · 08-05-06, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinVega

I like the revisionist historians here who say Clinton didn't do anything to try to stop Iraq or radical Islam. He attacked Sudan. He attacked Afghanistan. He attacked Iraq. Most Republicans at the time said the missile strike on Afghanistan was a ploy to put Monica Lewinsky on the back pages of the paper. They say, he had no guts since it was a cruise missile attack and he didn't get his man, Osama Bin Laden. Well, we invaded Afghanistan, how's Bush doing at getting OBL? Oh yeah, we can't find him. Clinton had numerous foreign policy failures, but he didn't get us involved in an occupation of a ME country with no end in sight.

I really wouldn't use those as good examples of fighting terrorism. However they may be the best examples that one can come up with of Clinton fighting terrorism. Did those attacks stop bin Laden from coordinating further attacks?

I'd like a few more details on that Sudan attack. What exactly was attacked?

Jason · 08-05-06, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X

I really wouldn't use those as good examples of fighting terrorism. However they may be the best examples that one can come up with of Clinton fighting terrorism. Did those attacks stop bin Laden from coordinating further attacks?

Look at the bombings in Spain and London. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have done nothing to stop bin laden (or his successors) from coordinating further attacks.

X · 08-05-06, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason

Look at the bombings in Spain and London. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have done nothing to stop bin laden (or his successors) from coordinating further attacks.

Did bin Laden coordinate those? Would they have happened even if bin Laden had been killed in Tora Bora or wherever?

I suppose we should have just left Afghanistan alone then.

nodeerforamonth · 08-05-06, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman2

The fact remains Clinton didn't engage this country in an unnecessary war, did he?

Didn't Clinton bomb Iraq indiscriminately?

Twice?

DVD Polizei · 08-05-06, 11:30 PM

I hope Rumsfeld calls for Hillary's resignation.

08-05-06, 05:20 PM	#54
classicman2 DVD Talk God Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 66,869	I believe the administration didn't show all the intelligence to congress. I don't believe anyone can challenge the fact that the administration deliberately chose to highlight the intelligence that made the best case for invading Iraq and ignored other intelligence. I stop short of saying that Bush lied. I just don't believe he was entirely forthcoming - especially concerning the evidence of what proved to be Iraq's non-existent nuclear program. Last edited by classicman2; 08-05-06 at 05:22 PM.

08-05-06, 05:23 PM	#56
General Zod DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Where it all happens - SoCal Posts: 15,830	I would also like to know who selectively withheld information to Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton in 1998 when they came up with the same conclusion? Anyone? I agree with you, Cman, that Bush did withhold some information. My contention is that it didn't matter in slightest. The same conclusions would have been reached. He just wanted to get everyone behind him as quickly as possible. Perhaps that was wrong of him, but I do think at the time he felt like ourselves and/or our allies were in danger from Saddam so he moved quickly. I don't fault him for that. I understand why there are those that do. Had things worked out differently he'd probably be getting thanked for his quick decision making. That's how it goes. __________________ "Kneel Before Zod" Last edited by General Zod; 08-05-06 at 05:26 PM.

08-05-06, 07:12 PM	#67
bhk DVD Talk Legend Join Date: May 1999 Location: Right of Atilla The Hun Posts: 19,749	It's fun to hear democrats arguing that the democrats that voted for authorization for the Iraq war are so stupid that they aren't responsible for their own actions, votes, letters, and speeches. At least that's honesty. __________________ "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." Hussein Massawi, the former leader of Hezbollah

08-05-06, 09:12 PM	#69
VinVega Moderator Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Stuck in the middle with you Posts: 24,061	I like the revisionist historians here who say Clinton didn't do anything to try to stop Iraq or radical Islam. He attacked Sudan. He attacked Afghanistan. He attacked Iraq. Most Republicans at the time said the missile strike on Afghanistan was a ploy to put Monica Lewinsky on the back pages of the paper. They say, he had no guts since it was a cruise missile attack and he didn't get his man, Osama Bin Laden. Well, we invaded Afghanistan, how's Bush doing at getting OBL? Oh yeah, we can't find him. Clinton had numerous foreign policy failures, but he didn't get us involved in an occupation of a ME country with no end in sight. __________________ History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity. - Cicero

08-05-06, 11:30 PM	#75
DVD Polizei DVD Talk Hero Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Overpricedville, OR Posts: 36,760	I hope Rumsfeld calls for Hillary's resignation. __________________ Blu-ray Titles: ~380 \| HD DVD Titles: ~323 "I don't sell airplane parts. I've never sold airplane parts."

08-05-06, 05:06 PM	#52
classicman2 DVD Talk God Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 66,869	Where did I say they were duped? What don't you attempt to respond to what I said? If you believe that any congressman or any senator is privy to the same intelligence information that the president is, you're sadly mistaken. To say they had the 'complete' information that Bush had is nonsense.

08-05-06, 05:42 PM	#60
classicman2 DVD Talk God Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 66,869	The fact remains Clinton didn't engage this country in an unnecessary war, did he?

08-05-06, 05:44 PM	#61
classicman2 DVD Talk God Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 66,869	Side Note: I can see it all now - 20 years from now (if this forum still exists) some of our members (including those who have posted today) will still be blaming poor old Bill Clinton for the multitude of mistakes that George W. made. On second thought - I probably won't see it.

08-05-06, 05:53 PM	#64
classicman2 DVD Talk God Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 66,869	I hold him blameless for the fiasco called Iraq. He was not the CIC who sent over 2,500 Americans to their death for what reason? To spread democracy?

08-05-06, 06:42 PM	#66
classicman2 DVD Talk God Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 66,869	No, I was just commenting on the 'establish democracy' argument - a democracy that we don't like.

08-05-06, 08:41 PM	#68
classicman2 DVD Talk God Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 66,869	I see. Congress is responsible for the actions that the president takes; but, the president is not responsible for those actions. Congress doesn't command troops. Congress doesn't send troops to invade countries. The president does. I understand that the Repubs & supporters of this war want to ignore that fact, because they realize what a failure this war has been. BTW: Technically, the Democrats or Republicans in the Congress for that matter didn't vote for the War in Iraq. They authorized the president to use force. It's even more amusing to see the Repubs trying desperately to lay the blame on other folks when they realize the blame lies with George W. Bush. Does anyone seriously believe that Bush wouldn't have gone ahead with the invasion of Iraq if congress hadn't authorized the use of force?