Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Expert

704

The High Plains

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

run4yrlif - 2005-11-04 1:10 PM Turns out Liz has a HIstory degree.

Anyone wanna go find another thread and argue organic chemistry?

Oh man, now why would you want to bring something evil like Organic Chemistry into this lovely little politcal discussion that's being had?

Bad Jim! Go back to playing with Cornhenge!

Steve

My Race Log

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: _________ is pathological liar!!!!

What Drewb8 said. We obviously disagree on the necessity for why we went to war in Iraq. I think that history will tell the true story, as the Plame affair and others reveal what was really going on behind the scenes.

Brett, I apologize to you. Let us agree to disagree.

The original post of the thread was to lament the removal of the spotlight from Rosa Parks, an amazing person who deserves to be remembered for her courage and conviction to stand up for what is right. Let's focus on her good, rather than other's bad.

-C

My Race Log

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Rocket Man - 2005-11-05 1:36 PM

Now before you and Renee and all of your liberal buddies on here try to equate this argument to the current situation, you can't because it is totally different.

Oh, honey, don't flatter yourself. Your argument ain't worth arguing!

Carry on with the nonsense. I'm having too much fun watching George Carlin Live. Too f'ing funny.

Edited by Renee 2005-11-05 9:56 PM

Pro

3883

Woodstock,GA

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

I thought this was funny given the name of the thread..................

> > The Little Red Hen-Modern Version
> >
> > Once upon a time, on a farm in Texas, there was a little red hen who
scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat.
> >
> > She called all of her neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat,
we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"
> >
> > "Not I," said the cow.
> >
> > "Not I," said the duck.
> >
> > "Not I," said the pig.
> >
> > "Not I," said the goose.
> >
> > "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. And so she did; The
wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
> >
> > "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
> >
> > "Not I," said the duck.
> >
> > "Out of my classification," said the pig.
> >
> > "I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
> >
> > "I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
> >
> > "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did. At
last it came time to bake the bread.
> >
> > "Who will help me bake the bread! ?" asked the little red hen.
> >
> > "That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
> >
> > "I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
> >
> > "I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
> >
> > "If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
> >
> > "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. She baked five
loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and,
in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all
five loaves."
> >
> > "Excess profits!" cried the cow.
> >
> > "Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.
> >
> > "I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose.
> >
> > The pig just grunted in disdain.
> >
> > And they all painted "Unfair!" picket signs and marched around and around
the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
> >
> > Then a government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not
be so greedy."
> >
> > "But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
> >
> > "Exactly," said the agent. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so
wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our
modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of
their labor with those who are lazy and idle,"
> >
> > And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who
smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand,"
> >
> > But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked
bread because she joined the "party" and got her bread free.
> >
> > And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established Individual
initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared.....as long as
there was free bread that "the rich" were paying for.
> >
> > Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
> >
> > Hillary got $8 million for hers.
> >
> > That's $20 million for memories from two people, who for eight years,
repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.
> >
> > IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY, OR WHAT?
> >
> >

My Race Log

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Bill Clinton rocks. George Bush has goofy big ears.

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

There's somethings about the Iraq war, while subtle bare some exposition. 1) There was no peace accord ending the first Gulf War. Rather there was a cease fire agreeement. (UN Resolution 687, April 3, 1991) This is important because my understanding is that because there was a cease fire agreement rather than a peace accord, or an Iraq Suit for peace, the fact is that Iraq was obligated to fulfill the requirements of the cease fire agreement or risk breaking the cease fire agreement. Thus, if Iraq broke the cease fire agreement hostilities could proceed. 2) Almost immediately Iraq violates the ceasefire agreement by ordering some of its scientists to hide nuclear weapons componenets from UNinspectors or justify their existence with other than military reasons. 3) 1991UN inspectors are actually fired on by Iraq military forces, when the inspectors attempt to intercept Iraq vehicles suspected of carrying nuclear components. 4) 1992 UN inspector report outlines Iraq's refusal to comply with disarmement resolutions. 5) 1992 Iraq claims to have unilaterally destroyed missles. This too is aviolation of the UN resolution as destruction was to be overseen by UN weapons inspectors to ensure that said destruction actually took place. 6) July 1992 Iraq refuses to allow inspectors into the Agricultural Ministry where inspectors believe that certain pertenant documents are being held. Ultimately the inspectors safety is threatened and the UN refuses to send in a security force. The inspectors retreat. 7) 1993 Iraq refuses to allow weapons inspectors to install remote monitoring devices in a missle factor. 8) 1993 Kuwait alleges to have uncovered a plot to assasinate President Bush on his visit to Kuwait. The plot is attributed to Iraq secret service. 9) 1994 Iraw threatens to not allow further inspections and deploys troops to the Kuwait border. 10) As early as 1995 the UN recognizes that several European countries are interested in post-war financial gains that could result from removing sanctions. Guess who: France and Russia. 11) 1995 Iraw threatens non-coperation if economic sanctions are not lifted. 12) Novemebr 1995 UN inspectors intercept Russian missile components being imported into Iraq, additionally more missle Russian missle components are found hidden in the tigras river. 13) Spring 1996 Iraq refuse inspectors entrance into 6 sites. Inspectors are delayed 17 hours. What was removed in that time period is unknown. 14) June 1996 Iraq again refuse inspectors entrance into numerous sites. The U.S. attempts to persuade the UN security counsel to initiate military action. (This is 1996, not 2001) 15) July 1996 Inspectors attempt to inspect the Republican guard headquarters, they are refused entrance.

I could go on and on. But from my perspective the Inspections were a total bust. Iraq refused to comply over and over and over again. And as their compliance was a condition of a cease fire agreement at any time upon non-compliance the reinstitution of hostilities was leaglly warranted.

But to say that UN weapons inspections were effective is revisionist history. Additionally the US sought a military solution to this problem as early as 1996.

Edited by ASA22 2005-11-07 9:29 PM

My Race Log

Expert

783

South Bend, IN

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Again, this will probably start out huge arguments, but there was a clear majority in Congress of DEMOCRATIC representatives and Senators that fully believed the SAME intelligence taht Bush had access to and felt that going to Iraq was necessary. I am not saying that it was the right move, but we have Schumer, Kerry, Harkin, et al all saying Bush lied, Bush Lied, but they all voted to give him the authority to do so, and ALL went on record saying how Saddam had to be stopped. So while you like to say Bush lied, then so did everybody else on the Hill, left and right.

My Race Log

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

cerveloP3 - 2005-11-09 6:56 AM..but we have Schumer, Kerry, Harkin, et al all saying Bush lied, Bush Lied, but they all voted to give him the authority to do so, and ALL went on record saying how Saddam had to be stopped. So while you like to say Bush lied, then so did everybody else on the Hill, left and right.

They all voted to support the POTUS becuase they believed the bogus intelligence the administration sold them. If nothing else, it means W. was successful at selling his big fat lie.

My Race Log

Elite

3498

Chicago

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

The United States sent soilders into Iraq?!? I thought the US sent soilders into Afgansistan?

My Race Log

Elite

2421

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

run4yrlif - 2005-11-09 6:06 AM

cerveloP3 - 2005-11-09 6:56 AM..but we have Schumer, Kerry, Harkin, et al all saying Bush lied, Bush Lied, but they all voted to give him the authority to do so, and ALL went on record saying how Saddam had to be stopped. So while you like to say Bush lied, then so did everybody else on the Hill, left and right.

They all voted to support the POTUS becuase they believed the bogus intelligence the administration sold them. If nothing else, it means W. was successful at selling his big fat lie.

Ah yes, it was all the administration who sold them on it. They had to twist their arms to convince them. Not that they thought they were jumping on the winning bandwagon and didn't want to get left behind. It had nothing to do with the fact that they wanted to be able to take as much credit as humanly possible for any of the success. Now, like rats deserting a sinking ship, they jump off screaming that it wasn't their fault and they never wanted to go in the first place.

Sounds like all the Nazi's at the war-crimes tribunal insisting that they had no idea that all these horrible acts were being perpetrated on their watch

bts

My Race Log

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Brett - 2005-11-09 7:27 AMAh yes, it was all the administration who sold them on it. They had to twist their arms to convince them. Not that they thought they were jumping on the winning bandwagon and didn't want to get left behind. It had nothing to do with the fact that they wanted to be able to take as much credit as humanly possible for any of the success. Now, like rats deserting a sinking ship, they jump off screaming that it wasn't their fault and they never wanted to go in the first place.Sounds like all the Nazi's at the war-crimes tribunal insisting that they had no idea that all these horrible acts were being perpetrated on their watch

bts

They totally didn't need to twist their arms. There were two factors: 1)universal support (rightly so) of the action in Afghanistan and 2) CIA intelligence speaking of an imminent threat. Because of those two things, it was an easy sell. The bottom line is the administration prayed on the fact that it would be an easy sell if they had the right intelligence, so they got some and even after they found out it was bogus, still presented it it to congress. It was a slam dunk. A criminal, impeachable slam dunk.

My Race Log

Expert

707

Kansas

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

CerveloP3, read the quote below from the dem god... check out that date... now Jim our fellow BT'er would say that Saddam tossed all his nuke's in 1999 cause he wanted world peace...

Eric

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

My Race Log

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ASA22 - 2005-11-07 8:11 PM [...] from my perspective the Inspections were a total bust.

If they were a bust, how come Iraq didn't have anything? Oh right, facts don't really matter, it's enough just to claim. Besides, there are many countries that have disobeyed UN resolutions and inspections. *cough*NorthKorea*cough* India and Pakistan have undertaken nuclear programs. Also, everything you state happend in the early to mid-1990's. If you haven't checked recently, it's almost 2006.

You carry on believing we were justified, and I'll carry on believing we went on falsified and overblown "intelligence" ( and I use that term loosely ) and needlessly endangered our troops ( including my brother ).

-C

My Race Log

Elite

2421

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

run4yrlif - 2005-11-09 6:35 AM

Brett - 2005-11-09 7:27 AMAh yes, it was all the administration who sold them on it. They had to twist their arms to convince them. Not that they thought they were jumping on the winning bandwagon and didn't want to get left behind. It had nothing to do with the fact that they wanted to be able to take as much credit as humanly possible for any of the success. Now, like rats deserting a sinking ship, they jump off screaming that it wasn't their fault and they never wanted to go in the first place.Sounds like all the Nazi's at the war-crimes tribunal insisting that they had no idea that all these horrible acts were being perpetrated on their watch

bts

They totally didn't need to twist their arms. There were two factors: 1)universal support (rightly so) of the action in Afghanistan and 2) CIA intelligence speaking of an imminent threat. Because of those two things, it was an easy sell. The bottom line is the administration prayed on the fact that it would be an easy sell if they had the right intelligence, so they got some and even after they found out it was bogus, still presented it it to congress. It was a slam dunk. A criminal, impeachable slam dunk.

Come now, we already have a presidential case study to say lying, even under oath, should not result in a removal from office.

bts

My Race Log

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Brett - 2005-11-09 6:51 AM

run4yrlif - 2005-11-09 6:35 AM

Brett - 2005-11-09 7:27 AMAh yes, it was all the administration who sold them on it. They had to twist their arms to convince them. Not that they thought they were jumping on the winning bandwagon and didn't want to get left behind. It had nothing to do with the fact that they wanted to be able to take as much credit as humanly possible for any of the success. Now, like rats deserting a sinking ship, they jump off screaming that it wasn't their fault and they never wanted to go in the first place.Sounds like all the Nazi's at the war-crimes tribunal insisting that they had no idea that all these horrible acts were being perpetrated on their watch

bts

They totally didn't need to twist their arms. There were two factors: 1)universal support (rightly so) of the action in Afghanistan and 2) CIA intelligence speaking of an imminent threat. Because of those two things, it was an easy sell. The bottom line is the administration prayed on the fact that it would be an easy sell if they had the right intelligence, so they got some and even after they found out it was bogus, still presented it it to congress. It was a slam dunk. A criminal, impeachable slam dunk.

Come now, we already have a presidential case study to say lying, even under oath, should not result in a removal from office.bts

Is the Clinton/Lewinski thing the best you can come up with? Come on already. That didn't cause the death of 2000+ US soldiers.

-C

My Race Log

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Brett - 2005-11-09 7:51 AMCome now, we already have a presidential case study to say lying, even under oath, should not result in a removal from office.bts

I made this point before, but I'll say it again. Which is worse, lying about where you put your penis, or lying about the justification for sending soldiers to their deaths. I'm not saying Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, but we all know if he enjoyed a democratic congress the way BUsh enjoys his republican congress, he would never have been impeached.

And if nothing else, the case study showed that lying is grounds for impeachment, so ya know, why no quid pro quo?

Oh yeah, fat chance of a republican congress impeacing a republican president, no matter how heinous his offense.

My Race Log

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

It wasn't just this administration that sought a military intervention in Iraq. As early as 1996 the administration went to the UN to seek re-institution of a military nature in Iraq. The problem was of course that they went to the UN security counsel. Of course Russia was is a permenent member of the security counsel. And as early as 1995 the UN acknowledged that certain memebers of the coalition were weakening in their resolve for the imposition of economic sanction, because they were seeking advantagous post war economic relationships with Iraq. (Oil). The two countries specifically listed in this 1995 report were Russia and France. 1996 military action is declined by the UN, fastforward to the current administration, two of the biggest detractors to the U.S. policies in Iraq...Russia and France. (Remember the Russian missle compenents that UN inspectors found being brought into the country in 1995, after the UN resolutions banning these types of weapons?)

For international political reasons no administration either Republican or Democrat could publicaly call out France and Russia, or the UN for that matter. Sure subtle criticisims can be made publically, but whole sale public reproaches is politically difficult. Although some would argue totally warranted.

The current situation isn't as clear cut as "Bush lied". That is an over simplification of a complex international situation. I believe it is a purposeful oversimplicification done because "Bush is a liar" is a better political tool than setting out the historical time line of the Iraq situation.

I keep going back to the fact that the Iraq government pre- US intervention was 1) a despotic dictatorship, 2) a murderous government that engaged in genocide, and the murder of 100's of thousands of its people 3) Iraq was a destabalizing force in the middle east. They started two wars in the region 4) They failed over and over again to comply with the 1991 cease fire agreement 5) Free governemnts have a responsibility to not turn a blind eye towards this type of governement.

History is full of situations in which hind sight says "Why didn't someone act sooner". The Iraq government was similar to the governments of Cambodia and Uganda in the 70's.

The problem I have with the war isn't the fact that we went to war, but rather the fact that there seems to be no clearly defined exit strategy. That is where I beleive the problem lies.

This is certainly only my opinion, anyone who is anti-war, is NOT anti-American. They are entitled to their opinion just as much as I am entitled to mine. History will determine which side is right.

My Race Log

Elite

2421

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

run4yrlif - 2005-11-09 6:56 AM

Brett - 2005-11-09 7:51 AMCome now, we already have a presidential case study to say lying, even under oath, should not result in a removal from office.bts

I made this point before, but I'll say it again. Which is worse, lying about where you put your penis, or lying about the justification for sending soldiers to their deaths. I'm not saying Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, but we all know if he enjoyed a democratic congress the way BUsh enjoys his republican congress, he would never have been impeached.

And if nothing else, the case study showed that lying is grounds for impeachment, so ya know, why no quid pro quo?

Oh yeah, fat chance of a republican congress impeacing a republican president, no matter how heinous his offense.

Now you're getting into moral relativism. I think perjuring yourself while the leader of one of the most powerful nations on the planet is disgraceful no matter what you lied about.

At any rate, it was more intended as a playful jab. But I wouldn't be complaining about partisan politics when it comes to impeachments. The Dem's voted straight down party lines to keep him from being removed. I think it was something on the order of 10 Republicans who crossed party lines to help avoid removing him from office. So if the President were to be impeached, does that mean the Dems will spot us ten votes from their side?

As for lying about sending troops into battle, I cited an article on Clinton in the last few days that questioned his actual motives for actions in Serbia and his own attacks on Iraq.

And I guess the intentional implementation of Goodwin's Law to try and help this thread die didn't work (and Goodwin's law even says it wouldn't, yet another case where it holds true).

I think the one thing we've established with little room for doubt is that no one here is going to change anyone else here's mind on this subject.

C'est la vie,
bts

My Race Log

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ASA22 - 2005-11-09 7:01 AM I keep going back to the fact that the Iraq government pre- US intervention was 1) a despotic dictatorship, 2) a murderous government that engaged in genocide, and the murder of 100's of thousands of its people 3) Iraq was a destabalizing force in the middle east. They started two wars in the region 4) They failed over and over again to comply with the 1991 cease fire agreement 5) Free governemnts have a responsibility to not turn a blind eye towards this type of governement.

Those are indeed good reasons, however, those were not the reasons that were given as justification, and I don't believe that those alone are enough. Heck, other than #4, you could apply those reasons to Germany ( changing #3 to read Europe in place of Middle East ). Past actions by Iraq do not justify the current action. At the time we went, the sanctions and threats *were* working. Inspectors *were* back in Iraq. Look to Libya for an example of a similar "threat" to our security that was resolved without our sending in troops and taking out Qadafi.

The problem I have with the war isn't the fact that we went to war, but rather the fact that there seems to be no clearly defined exit strategy. That is where I beleive the problem lies.This is certainly only my opinion, anyone who is anti-war, is NOT anti-American. They are entitled to their opinion just as much as I am entitled to mine. History will determine which side is right.

Here, we both agree. While I bemoan that we were lied to about the reasons for going, the fact is that we did go, and are now fully committed. We cannot simply bring all the troops home, as that will create a far worse situation in Iraq than the days of Saddam. The administration got us into a big mess, and had no plan for how to handle the rebuilding of Iraq. That I think is the most damning part, starting something, and not having any clue on how to finish it.

-C

My Race Log

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Is this thread still alive? Sheesh...

(monkey.jpg)

Attachments
----------------
monkey.jpg (81KB - 1 downloads)

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

coredump - 2005-11-09 7:50 AM

ASA22 - 2005-11-07 8:11 PM [...] from my perspective the Inspections were a total bust.

If they were a bust, how come Iraq didn't have anything? Oh right, facts don't really matter, it's enough just to claim. Besides, there are many countries that have disobeyed UN resolutions and inspections. *cough*NorthKorea*cough* India and Pakistan have undertaken nuclear programs. Also, everything you state happend in the early to mid-1990's. If you haven't checked recently, it's almost 2006.

You carry on believing we were justified, and I'll carry on believing we went on falsified and overblown "intelligence" ( and I use that term loosely ) and needlessly endangered our troops ( including my brother ).

-C

Should the free countries of the world have intervened in Uganda in the 1970's? Should the free countries of the world have intervened in Cambodia in the late 1970's? Should the free countries of the world have intervened in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990's?

I keep hearing the "Bush lied" card over and over and over. But none of you have stated under what circumstances you believe that the US was or would have been justified in military action in Iraq? If there is another legitimate reason for the war then the steam is taken out of the political hot button statement of "Bush Lied".

I'm tired of the North Korea/Pakistan arguement. It's a Red Herring used by the anti-Bush side. For that arguement to hold water we would have to believe that every international situation is similar and should be dealt with in an identical manner. Clearly that is not the case. The situation of the Korean penensula is clearly different than that in Iraq. 1) The Koreans have a delivery system that can reach both South Korea and Japan. 2) The Chinese wouldn't be too happy with western military invovlement in their back yard. While the relationship between China and North Korea has certainly soured since 1950, don't think that Chinese responce isn't an issue in the North Korean situation. (Although historically it was Stalin that had more to do with the Korean war than China) 3) The sabbre rattling of N. Korea has been seen before. They rattle their nuclear sabbres in an attempt to get economic concesions from the west. The last time it was done had to do with lifting a fuel oil embargo.

My personal perspective is that the US, and other free societies, have a duty to oppose murderous regimes. That opposition can take many forms, one of them is military intervention.

My Race Log

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

coredump - 2005-11-09 8:10 AM

ASA22 - 2005-11-09 7:01 AM I keep going back to the fact that the Iraq government pre- US intervention was 1) a despotic dictatorship, 2) a murderous government that engaged in genocide, and the murder of 100's of thousands of its people 3) Iraq was a destabalizing force in the middle east. They started two wars in the region 4) They failed over and over again to comply with the 1991 cease fire agreement 5) Free governemnts have a responsibility to not turn a blind eye towards this type of governement.

Those are indeed good reasons, however, those were not the reasons that were given as justification, and I don't believe that those alone are enough. Heck, other than #4, you could apply those reasons to Germany ( changing #3 to read Europe in place of Middle East ). Past actions by Iraq do not justify the current action. At the time we went, the sanctions and threats *were* working. Inspectors *were* back in Iraq. Look to Libya for an example of a similar "threat" to our security that was resolved without our sending in troops and taking out Qadafi.

The problem I have with the war isn't the fact that we went to war, but rather the fact that there seems to be no clearly defined exit strategy. That is where I beleive the problem lies.This is certainly only my opinion, anyone who is anti-war, is NOT anti-American. They are entitled to their opinion just as much as I am entitled to mine. History will determine which side is right.

Here, we both agree. While I bemoan that we were lied to about the reasons for going, the fact is that we did go, and are now fully committed. We cannot simply bring all the troops home, as that will create a far worse situation in Iraq than the days of Saddam. The administration got us into a big mess, and had no plan for how to handle the rebuilding of Iraq. That I think is the most damning part, starting something, and not having any clue on how to finish it.

-C

And again I disagree with the idea that the sanctions were working. In Sept 2002 president Bush addresses the UN and implores them to enforce their own resolutions dating back some 11 years. Only after that does the UN pass reslotution 1441 (Novemeber 2002). This new resolution sets out what a "material breech" of the previous resolutions is, and warns that failure to comply will result in "serious consequences". Only after that are UN ispectors let back into the country. The first inspector reaches Iraq Novemebr 18, 2002. Inspectors have been absent from Iraq for over 3 years!!!

December US troops are deployed to the region. After this UN ispectors find 11 previously undeclared banned warheads. This is some three months after Iraq had turned over to the UN a 12,000 page document claiming that they had complied fully with UN sanctions.

I'd be more than happy to trace the Iraq issue from 1999-2002. But to say that Iraq had complied...that's revisionist history. And they were legally required to comply by the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement and the 11 years worth of UN sanctions. (Iraq is another shining example of the failure of the UN)

My Race Log

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ASA22 - 2005-11-09 7:19 AM Should the free countries of the world have intervened in Uganda in the 1970's? Should the free countries of the world have intervened in Cambodia in the late 1970's? Should the free countries of the world have intervened in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990's?

Yes, as all other options had been exhausted, and the only course left was military intervention.

My personal perspective is that the US, and other free societies, have a duty to oppose murderous regimes. That opposition can take many forms, one of them is military intervention.

I agree, however, I believe that military intervention should be used sparingly and as a last resort. When used, a clear plan for success *after* we've won the military action must be in place. To do otherwise is to cause the needless deaths of our soldiers and risk further destablilization of the region.

-C

My Race Log

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Moral relativism: I just asked (again) who you'd rather have for a president, No one's answered that question yet. I also said I didn't say Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, but if it's good enough for our guy, why isn't it good enough for your guy? And I also said...implied, at least, that it was political. I said if Clinton had a democratic congress, he wouldn't have been impeached. And since Bush has a republican congress, there's no way he will be impeached.

Brett - 2005-11-09 8:10 AM
Now you're getting into moral relativism. I think perjuring yourself while the leader of one of the most powerful nations on the planet is disgraceful no matter what you lied about.At any rate, it was more intended as a playful jab. But I wouldn't be complaining about partisan politics when it comes to impeachments. The Dem's voted straight down party lines to keep him from being removed. I think it was something on the order of 10 Republicans who crossed party lines to help avoid removing him from office. So if the President were to be impeached, does that mean the Dems will spot us ten votes from their side?As for lying about sending troops into battle, I cited an article on Clinton in the last few days that questioned his actual motives for actions in Serbia and his own attacks on Iraq.And I guess the intentional implementation of Goodwin's Law to try and help this thread die didn't work (and Goodwin's law even says it wouldn't, yet another case where it holds true). I think the one thing we've established with little room for doubt is that no one here is going to change anyone else here's mind on this subject.C'est la vie,bts

My Race Log

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

coredump - 2005-11-09 8:40 AM

Yes, as all other options had been exhausted, and the only course left was military intervention.

Exactly. The bottom line is the UN sanctions were working, as evidenced by the lack of WMDs. Now if you want to invade based on human rights violations, why aren't we in Cuba or China?

My Race Log

Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! (Page 6)

REGISTER TODAY