President Clinton [b]still[/b]
 

...supports President Bush's decision to invavde Iraq...as reported on the morning news.

:rasta

if youre going to post news then post all of it
he said that they shouldve wait until the weapon shit was finished.

That does not alter the fact...that he supports the invasion.

:1orglaugh reporters seems to have the ability to distort the thruth... Have seen Rather on Larry King and he says that Clinton DOES NOT approve Bush going to war like he did.. going over the head of the UN, not continuing the research, giving americans and the world bogus information.,... but now after all is done.. he spports what is now going on in Iraq.. trying to clean up the place, establsih a new government etc...

''In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process," Clinton told CBS News's Dan Rather in a ''60 Minutes" interview to air tonight. Clinton made similar comments in an interview with Time magazine, in which he said he ''supported the Iraq thing" but questioned its timing.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...n_iraq_timing/

if you dont support the timing, then you cant support it.

if you still think he supports it while the news says that he didnt support the timing then youre only reading what youre willing to read.

What part of "support" do you not understand?

nevermind. its too late for you.

:1orglaugh

God damn "The King" is gettin owned by folks with less than 1500 Posts now a days... Tough times indeed!:glugglug

He has stated before that he supports the invasion (and in fact has been somewhat of a defender of President Bush) but that he would have handled it a bit differently.

Wrong...as usual.

He is being nice (and neutral).

First & foremost - he's pushing his book ya know.

A bit differently???

You fucken retard Clinton would have followed the UN.
READ THE ARTICLE!

Duh!

Clinton would havedone it the right way, infact any Former American President would have fucken done it the right way except Bush is who nothing more than a fucken Red Neck Texan soon to be war criminal that thinks they are above the law...

Difficult to say. He had no problem launching missiles into Sudan based on "intelligence" which was questionable.

"if you're not with us, you're against us"

You neutral bastards are next! :1orglaugh

McKinley?

I hope you are not comparing launching missiles on terrorist compounds to a full blown war ? lol

Dumb fuck...he supports the invasion...but not the timing...thus he would have done things a bit differently.

Would you agree with me that launching missiles into a sovereign country is an act of war?

I don't know if that was a terrorist compound in Sudan. Maybe it was but there seems to be a lot of evidence that it was just a pharmaceutical factory.

If I'm not mistaken, a president cant declare war.
Only the congress can.
So the last war that the US was involved in was WWII I think..
The rest are police actions.

He's on a book tour, moron.

Do you really take anything he says at face value right now?


Since you obviously do, one could say that by saying he doesn't agree with the timing, he is trying to say as nicely as possible (without offending half of America), that he would have let the weapons inspections finish & worked with the UN -- the United Nations (of the rest of the world).

The US would have probably invaded IRAQ at some point in time I do not doubt that fact, but the case here is all about the timing.

Even Bush didnt get Saddam as the United Nations did not want a full scale invasion, the UN wanted containment...

Saddam was fucken already cuffed, and harmless when Bush Ver.2.0 came into play.

With the right timing the US would have had overwelming support inthe UN with that overwelming support on the ground with troops.

Correct timing would have been based on the assassination of Saddam or a Cou de tat or an internal rise, or invasion from Iran...
Any number of possibilities...

Instead Bush the red neck Nazi over steps the United States position and allies, starts a fucken war the US can't afford financially, a war the that makes the US look like a fucken insolent rogue nation in the worlds view.

In short Bush has done everything in his power to ruin the hard work our forefathers put inplace regarding international relations.

You are not mistaken...only Congress can officially declare war.

He made similar statements...long before his book came out...but I suppose you can take the position that he was practicing "forward thinking". I accepted the man at his word when he first made similar statements.

Not if you do not target the government/army.. but terrorist rebels which the government of respective countries do nothing about (or cant do nothing about)... Terrorists that btw.. had just attacked US ambassies... A prompt swift retalliation was needed... That fallls in the category "war on terror" ... not war against a country.. ex.: afgahnistan..

Not the case with Iraq..

you can play with words all you want.. act of war.. etc.. but the fact remain is you CANNOT compare the 2... A full blown war against a country is not the same as hitting criminals that killed some of your citizens hidding in a foreign country thinking they are protected... The fact is that they are not protected and now.. they better think again... Clinton made a good move :2 cents:

Ah...

So for Clinton, you want to "accept the man at his word", implying he is a damn liar if he's dancing around his feelings on the war.. err sorry, we're not at war -- the 'thing' in Iraq.

However you don't want to call allmighty Bush on his word, or his administrations word that has been broken countless times since they, took office (literally).

Not that their word is worth a shit - or any other politician for that matter - Clinton included. It's part of Politicis 101 -- The art of lying.


Why not just admit that you are clinging a little to tightly to Clinton's use and timing of the the word "support" and call it a day with this thread. :winkwink:

The inpections were not something that was open to dicussion, yet Iraq continued to block access and kicked them out of the country countless times. We put up with this shit for ten years. It was pently long enough.

Did Iraq think this was a game?

Maybe they were sick of them harassing them when they knew there was nothing to find?

I mean how long would you let the police rummage around your home destroying your shit looking for CP that doesn't exist before you have your attorney attack & throw them out, Roc?


There's no arguing that Iraq and Saddam was a POS to his country and his people.

No nation is perfect... We Americans have a lot of problems and atrocities going on here, right now, as well (committed by lobbyists and the corporations they work for).

not true... inspections were being made.. and have been at time fairly successful during those 10 years... The inspections resume in full force shortly before the war... was Iraq being difficult? Yes.. but there was progress... the fact is that Iraq was surrended.. they were going no where... their hands were tied... we had no reason to rush things out especially if it would have pleased some G8 countires.. the UN.. and most importantly the Arab world... the US rushing it and going nearly alone was a REAL BAD move damaging their already weak reputation in the middle east... which is basically at the source of terrorists' motivation.. their hate for the US...

Awww dont be too hard on Gee Dubya.. After all, between the time he took office and 9/11 he was mostly on vacation :)

"Implying"...is your take...not mine.

You are mistaken.

As I have stated...President Clinton...has made similar statements in the past about the invasion...so I am not "clinging" to the word "support" or any other word. Overall...President Clinton has made it clear in the past...and once again has made it clear... that he is not against the invasion of Iraq in general.

Firing a missile into any country is an act of war. That's not playing with words.
I agree with you that firing a missile into Sudan is not the same as invading Iraq but not because of principle. This is only because Sudan has no capability for retaliation nor willing allies. Firing a missile into China or Russia, however, would be inviting war and no one would blame them for retaliating.

I guarantee you if the Mexican president were to fire a missile into a Texas pharmaceutical plant it would be taken as an act of war. Do you agree or disagree?

I'm sure you think that if the US were to fire a missile into a Canadian factory that would be an act of war. Correct? So why not Sudan? What are you saying? Its ok to bomb brown people?

I think you're being hypocritical. You are defending Clinton for firing a missile into a Sudanese factory in retaliation for an al Qaeda bombing of an embassy. As far as we've seen, there is little if any evidence that the "chemical factory" was anything of the sort. Clinton acted on intelligence which was - like the intelligence on Iraq - faulty.

I might be. I haven't followed your threads, but I can see your stance and grasping at the "support" straws with this one. It's pretty clear how, and why, Clinton said what he said when he said it.

Unless of course of you have an agenda, and want to go over every word and statement he says and use it out of it's original context.


Err....



If you say so.

How many times must I repeat...that President Clinton has made similar statments in the past...in support of the invasion...as I tried to highlite in the topic of this thread...ie still...thus his support is not really news.

I wish we'd stop all this crap about the war, look the information was fucked up but we're there now..it's more important to fix things than waste time blaming people.

Well, I have to ask, doesnt it beg the question of "whats your point?"?

If he now said he no longer supports the invasion, wouldnt that be more noteworthy?

Breaking News: Former President Clinton maintains his position!

hehe :winkwink:

It's ok to support whats already in progress after your preferred option has already become a moot point. Gotta live in reality after all.

I think there's a continuity between the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations on the willingness to act decisively on intelligence regarding terrorists whether that be bombing within sovereign borders or, as Bush has upped the ante, in full scale invasion. Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

I doubt this will change if Kerry is elected.

But how many times has Clinton said something to the effect of....

"I support the invasion of Iraq and the way Bush did it was O.K. by me too."

And like you said, he knew he had a book coming out and a book tour that would be during one of the most controversial elections since... well... a long ass time... of course he was forward thinking & posturing with what he's said.

Saying he supports the invasion but not the timing is typical political speak-no-speak run around bullshit meant to offend the least amount of people as possible.

So you cling to "Support" and the other side clings to "timing" and nobody knows wtf Clinton really meant.

After all, whenever Hillary runs, you know who's going to be on the ticket with her don't you?

The point is...even with all of the problems we have encountered...he still supports the mission in Iraq. He is not saying the mission was/is wrong...as some on this board do almost daily...he is not calling for a withdrawal of our forces...as some on this board do almost daily.

Then again, maybe by "timing" he meant he would have done it when an administration that didn't have such deep ties in and around the oil industry was in office.

It's really hard to tell what people mean when they make such broad and undefined statements.

Well ok then I get your point. I think another good point is that he's being a realist. Hopefully alot of us are trying to be realists, while being optimistic as well.

I think the argument can easily be made that just because someone supports a war effort *after* the war effort has begun, it doesnt mean that they think it was the best option on the table.

I think an awful lot of folks never ruled *out* the possibility of using force in Iraq. But an awful lot of those folks didnt think it was such a "front burner" option as this administration did.

Nothing wrong with that.

I personally do not think it was a "front burner" option...but I do approve of the take down of Saddam and the Baath party...and I have stated multiple times my only complaint is that we waited so long to do it. I would have acted within the 1st year of the "cease fire" agreements.

Why don't you quit arguing about what he said & see for yourself tinight on the Dan Rather interview for 60 minutes...........

Very true.

What I object to is the string of baloney that I think we were fed. And I preface that by saying that whether it was faulty intelligence or not, I feel the same way. The face of our gov. to the world is the president. If the president is going to say they have ties to 9/11, they might have nukes, they have tons of chemical and biological weapons, then by god they better have them.
Now we hear that the mission is to liberate the people of iraq, and to spread democracy in the region.

I might have bought it if thats what they were selling, but they werent selling that.

I feel that they railroaded these ideas when pressure was on to capture or kill the terrorists who were directly responsible for 9/11. They fed the american people what they wanted to hear, and naturally they found support for those ideas.

I reject the notion that this administrations actions are representative of the majority of the american public which they are supposed to represent.

But I'm open minded and have respect for opposing viewpoints.

I will exersize my right and responsibility to get out and vote in the presidential election.

:thumbsup

First.. you seem to fail to understand that Sudan was NOT attacked... criminals hiding in the country were... You think that if the US could have found Bin Laden prior to 9/11,(just after he claimed having blown up a US ambassy...) and hit him with a missile.. The country harboring Bin Laden (assuming they are not totally out of their minds) would have took that as an act of war and would have had rateliated if they had the power?! common... Now if you miss the guy and hit a pharmaceutical plant.. well tough luck.. you shouldnt have harbored the guy... You think the world community would have blamed you... !? No.. aside maybe from telling you to be more careful next time... Terrorist should never be able to be protected just by hiding in a country that is not willing or capable of dealing with them...




About being hypocritical....

If terrorists were hiding in Canada, a known group that just attacked US ambassies...(first, thats crazy to think the canadian government wouldnt cooperate) but just to go along with the exemple.. if the canadian government was insane and would do nothing about them (or cannot do nothing about them) .. the US should have the moral rights the go catch or attack those criminals themselves... Like I said above... terrorist should never be able to be protected just by hiding in a country that is not willing or capable of dealing with them... What goes for sudan.. goes for any other country...