Would Bill Clinton be going to war?
 

News story released four years ago this week:

"PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS MADE AN APPEAL TO IRAQI LEADER SADDAM HUSSEIN TO ALLOW U-N WEAPONS INSPECTIONS TO GO FORWARD AND ELIMINATE THE NEED OF U-S-LED MILITARY ACTION. HE ALSO SAYS
RUSSIAN OPPOSITION TO A MILITARY MOVE WILL NOT STOP THE UNITED STATES FROM ACTING. V-O-A'S DAVID GOLLUST HAS DETAILS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

MR. CLINTON SAYS HE WANTS A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS AND HAS "BENT OVER BACKWARDS" TO TRY TO ACHIEVE ONE. HE SAYS IF THERE HAS TO BE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ, IT WILL BE
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S DECISION, NOT HIS. "

I believe he would also.

He's a lover, not a fighter :1orglaugh

Bill Clinton is a pimp. If he were in office and about to go to war he would give the U.S. citizens enough info to support him instead of bringing up the same shit over and over.

"I did not have sexual relations with iraq"

Back at the start of all this I would have said 'No'. But now, despite his protestations, I think even he'd be considering it. He would NOT be quite so gung ho about it though. I still think GW is a nutter.

How many chances would YOU give Saddam?

'Saddam Hussein has failed his one last chance to cooperate with United Nations resolutions. ' - Bill Clinton. 12/16/1998

Really? This doesn't sound familiar?

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world," - Bill Clinton

Unless I did not hear it right, he said on Larry King last night that Al Quaida would be his priority, not saddam.

Naughty,

Thanks for killing my thread with evidence. :Kissmy

If people in this country don't truly miss Clinton, they will in a few weeks when we start the inevitable military action against Iraq. I know the US economy misses him. It's in the toilet and about to be flushed by the policies of the moron we elected to be in charge.:321GFY

One thing about Clinton which seems to be overlooked...

Clinton understood the language of international diplomacy. He understood that if you don't want to put people's backs up and you want other countries to work/agree with you, you deal with them diplomatically and respectfully (whatever you may actually think about them).

Bush/Rummy seem to make international politics personal. Which at the very least is incredibly childish.

At worst, it's incredibly dangerous.

As is being demonstrated.

Any time buddy:winkwink:

ROFL !

yeah he's probably been there a couple times on "oily" business

no he is a fucking pussy!

Well said Jammy....btw, what the hell is a jammy?

"James"? :)

Hey, it was meant to be a temp name for spamming. And look what happened. :1orglaugh

I'm interested in what you have to say and why you think that.

Why do you consider the US economy to be "in the toilet"? We are not in a recession. The real US GDP expanded 3% last year. The US Composite Index of leading economic indicators has been increasing. In December, 8 of the 10 indicators were up. What economic policy of Bush's are you even criticizing?

Could we be expanding faster than 3%? Yes, but Allen Greenspan has said on a number of occasions that his monetary policy is designed to ease the transition from the stock market bubble to historically normal price levels relative to earnings. He has also recently pointed out that the US economy has been amazingly resilient in posting a 3% gain last year despite a drop in stock prices, a decline in capital expenditures, fallout from 9/11, corporate scandals such as Enron, and worldwide political factors.

yah .. well .. good decision, we could have a million posts just about how people hate spam .. and how it doesn't work anyway .

Bill was good for bizniz. Find another president who does not sublimate sex urges into aggression, pleez:Graucho

Wheres Boneprone??.... He should be here saying something witty like "Clinton would launch a war against crabs!"

Typical GOP rhetoric. Here are some other stats. 200,000 jobs have been lost since Clinton left office, and we are now operating out of a huge deficit. Clinton left office with a surplus. Giving tax cuts to benefit your fat cat, rich coroporate buddies doesn't stimulate economic growth and doesn't mean shit to Joe Average citizen who has to feed and clothe his family while his 20 year old son gets killed overseas in an unecesssary war that his dad couldn't finish 12 years ago.
Just my:2 cents:

Actually Sr. followed the UN mandate 12 years ago and did not go after Saddam as he should have in. Now, everyone is saying the Jr. won't following the UN and wants to do it on his on.

You can't have it both ways.

Also, can someone please explain to me why the group of people who pay the highest percentage of taxes should not get the highest percent of the tax cut? Hasn't the idea of redistributing the wealth equally amongst the population already been tried and failed?

Haha.

Riiight...

I'm sorry that you are blinded by your party views. You're obviously more interested in politics than economics. For the record, I'm not at all a Republican. There are candidates in both parties that I would vote for.

The US Real GDP grew 3% last year whether you want to believe it or not. The numbers are publicly available and easy to find.

Greenspan was appointed by both the Republican and Democratic presidents of the past two decades. The Federal Reserve was designed to separate monetary policy from the office of the president and congress. One excellent example is that Bush Sr. wanted Greenspan to ease credit. This would have inflated the economy temporarily and increased the chances of a Bush re-election. Greenspan made the correct decision and refused.

I think that supply side tax cuts stimulate the economy in some cases - not all. Myself? I'm not in favor of tax cuts right now. I would rather balance the budget on an annual basis rather than trying to expand the economy and create a greater surplus later. That might work. Then again maybe not. Glad you think YOU know.

Actually I think Clinton would go the route that France and Germany have been talking about lately, flooding Iraq with so many inspectors that the Iraqi gov't couldn't keep up with them.

Ever heard the phrase "Its not what you say, its how you say it"?
Nowhere is that more true than in international diplomacy. Being a cowboy from Texas might win you a few votes in the southern states, but its detrimental to our international interests.

Bush says, and I'm paraphrasing "we want to attack Iraq, I know he's hiding weapons of mass destruction, maybe I'll show you evidence and maybe I won't, but we're going in whether you like it or not"

I think Clinton would have used mass inspections to prove to the world that he's hiding weapons FIRST, and THEN gone to the UN and demanded action. In which case we would have a much broader base of international support.

Clinton is a pussy. Back when Ossama did his first few terrorist acts against the US (blew up US embassy, etc), he lobbed a few cruise missles into Afghanistan and then just washed his hands and got back to his intern blow jobs.

This just gave Ben Laden contempt for US and made him bolder.

Clinton is to the US as Chamberlan was to Pre WWII England. He'd give away the farm to save the cow.

Bush is the Winston Churchill. People forgot that when Churchill started talking about going to war with Hitler, most of the Brits and about 90% of the Americans wanted appeasement instead.

Why didn't he do it then.

I know, he only had eight years.

Because no one else would have either.
The world changed after 9/11.
Why didn't the first Bush go into Iraq and take out Saddam? Because he didn't want to stay there for 5 years (that was how long his military advisors estimated it would take to go from house to house through Baghdad)

Before 9/11 we never saw other countries as a real threat to us, because we're bordered on the east and west by vast oceans.
9/11 changed everything, if it wasn't for that even this Bush wouldn't be doing this and he would have zero public support for it if he did.

Something else a lot of people don't realize about our policy towards Iraq.

Whilst Sadam is an S.O.B., Iran isn't exactly our friend either.(they refer to the US as the "great satan") We don't want Iran controlling Iraq or vice versa.
If the Iraqi gov't is toppled, I've got dollars to donuts that Iran will try to make a move. Then our troops will have to fight the Iranian army to protect Iraq.
How much popular support do you think we'll have for that fight?

BUT, if Iran controls not only their oil fields and population, but those of Iraq as well, it would have catastrophic effects on the balance of power in the middle east and on the world oil market (you think gas prices are high now?)

As long as Sadam wasn't a clear and present danger to us (i.e. contained) we let him be because it was the lesser of two evils.

Since 9/11, with Sadam's links to Al Qaida and what we believe is his willingness to arm them with weapons of mass destruction, we see him as an immmediate threat, whereas we did not see him that way during the end of Bush Sr's term or Clintons 2 terms.

Yeah that's right, the entire economy of a trillion dollar nation can be instantly changed by having a different guy in the oval office. If our economy was THAT fragile, we'd be in a shitload of trouble. Maybe you should think about things before you speak.

I'm not a big Bush supporter but that's just ignorant.

Nice points Lenny.

Actually its a 10 trillion dollar economy.
The gov't will take in over 2 trillion next year just in tax revenues.

Let me just state for the record here, that I loved the US when clinton was in office.

He wasn't perfect, but I greatly respected him.

I feel that bush and co are very dangerous. And look at the damage they are doing.

I am not anti-american per se

I am anti the Bush administration

And anti ultra-nationalistic americans

Funny thing is, I was thinking the same thing about you. Assholes and opinions, everyone has one.:winkwink:

Like he did with China? or Monica? or All those missing files? or the land deals?

What world do you live in .....

I bet you thought that there is a surplus too huh...

baaaa..... baaa...... baaa......

I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

I never specifically said economic change could be accomplished by one person in an instant. It's about a course of action over a period of time. It took Clinton two terms to completely did out of the Reagan/Bush ecomonic shit pile that he was left with.
Maybe you should use your own advice.

You're the one claiming that tax cuts can't stimulate economic growth. It's an ongoing debate but yet you know the answer. I am completely NOT claiming to know what happens under such cuts.

Personally, I think it rather silly that anyone would
claim that supply side initiatives always work or don't work under all circumstances. An economy is a non-linear multivariable time-dependent beast. How can the relationship between policy causes and economic effects always be so simple as to not change from time to time?

You are just spewing forth the Democratic party line. You are not at all interested in the truth, only what supports your party. You see nearly all the leading economic indicators rising, a fair 3% GDP growth last year and yet claim the economy is in the toilet. Really, I think you would rather see a bad economy to get a Democrat in office than a good economy for the United States. At worst, the economy is average right now. "In the toilet"? Propaganda.

Bill Clinton was and could still be a consumate diplomat. The same skills he used on Monica seem to have done wonders for his international relatons also.

Clinton respected to opinions of other world leaders and understood that the major issue to resolve is the Israeli Paleistinian conflict. If that could be resolved th arab world would not have the rancor they feel for the US.

The Bushies refuse to recognize the real underlying issue. They would be wise to ask Clinton to mediate in the middle east. Clinton is respected by all parties there and was very close to an agreement. If that agreement happens a major thorn in the side of the arab world would evaporate.

Calm down Pat Buchanan! Hey, at least the discussion is lively.:winkwink:

OK, that was pretty funny :-)

This is from CBS news, they mention we are in a recession and that the GDP growth is actually weaker than normal, but I'm sure they are wrong and you are right. Why don't you try to get your info from someone other than Rush Limbaugh.

(CBS)*The American economy barely budged at the end of 2002, growing at an annual rate of just 0.7 percent in the final three months of the year, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

The performance ? weaker than the 0.9 percent increase analysts were predicting ? gave the fourth quarter the distinction of being the worst quarter for gross domestic product in 2002.

It also marked the weakest showing since the economy actually shrank at a 0.3 percent rate in the third quarter of 2001 as the country was mired in its first recession in a decade.

There were warning signs that the one saving grace of the economy during the slowdown ? individual consumer spending ? might be weakening. The fall-off in growth was partly due to lower household purchases, which grew at their slowest rate in almost a decade.

In another report, the Labor Department said new claims for unemployment benefits increased last week for the second week in a row.

The meager rise in gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2002 came after the economy grew at a respectable 4 percent rate in the third quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

GDP measures the total value of goods and services produced within the United States and is considered the broadest barometer of the economy's health.

Although the economy ended 2002 on a sour note, for all of 2002 the economy grew by a decent 2.4 percent. While that marked a big improvement over the tiny 0.3 percent rise registered in 2001, it was still considered weaker-than-normal growth for the U.S. economy.

The economy, knocked down by a recession that began in March 2001, has been struggling to get back on sure footing. Economic growth has been uneven, with a quarter of strength, followed by a quarter of weakness.:thumbsup

Sorry, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Apparently it doesn't matter where YOU get your news from because you cannot read it so well.
The article states that the US was in a recession in 2001. That was two years ago and that is correct.

Specifically, that recession ended 15 months ago.

The commonly accepted definition of a recession is two or more consecutive quarters of GDP shrinkage. The United States GDP has grown for five consecutive quarters including a 5% gain in the first quarter of 2002 and a 4% gain in the third quarter of 2002. Therefore we are NOT in a recession.

Average annual GDP growth since 1991 has been 3%. You can go calculate that yourself. Should take you five minutes.

The majority of the leading economic indicators were up last quarter.

Come back and try again after you educate yourself and try reading a little better next time son.

I think he would and here is why......

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...raq/index.html

Well, it actually talks about a recession that STARTED in March of 2001 and if what we have is growth, it's uneven at best. This is all semantics anyway. We are in no way, shape or form operating from as efficient an economy now as we were the last two years Clinton was in office.

Except that bush wasnt elected, he was appointed. Funny how everyone has forgotten that he didnt even get the most votes, then went to court to stop the votes from being counted...............

Don't even get me started on that topic!:feels-hot