Hijacked! Who is the worst president since 1950

[Scott]

My apologies as well for hijacking the thread.

Hmmm. Interesting how you don't provide sources for your claim and creatively quote someone else's source. This invalidates your statement.Sorry, I thought these statements were common knowledge that some people just forgot about...

Here's a few sources for you...

Bill on Saddam's WMDs (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/)

Here's another. (http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_1483.shtml)

Hillary on Saddam's WMDs (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html)

Albright, Berger, Cohen on Saddam's WMDs. (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html) The State Department transcript starts a little down the page.

Source? When was this written? Where did the senators get their information from?The letter is dated 10/09/98 from Senator Levin's office (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html)

[DavidJames]

At one point people thought the earth was flat (sorry no source), but things change. If Clinton had acted on the information he had and not long after it was determined that the information he had was bad, and futhermore people had known it was bad then I would hold Clinton accountable. Said another way, If Clinton were GWB, I would feel exactly like I do now.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Scott

Hillary on Saddam's WMDs (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html)



I keep getting "Cannot find server" on that one.

[Scott]

Here you go...

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[a_unique_person]

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Scott
My apologies as well for hijacking the thread.

Sorry, I thought these statements were common knowledge that some people just forgot about...

Here's a few sources for you...

Bill on Saddam's WMDs (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/)

Here's another. (http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_1483.shtml)

Hillary on Saddam's WMDs (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html)

Albright, Berger, Cohen on Saddam's WMDs. (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html) The State Department transcript starts a little down the page.

[/b]The letter is dated 10/09/98 from Senator Levin's office (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html) [/B]

Yes, and what is interesting about that is that the Republicans OPPOSED his efforts to resolve the Iraq issue at the time, and the Lewisnki issues served to totally distract the country from the important issue at hand.

The Republicans had essentially decided that "they" wanted to do this job, thus they were undermining his ability to do it on his own terms in the first place, and already had a plan in place to win in 2000 and do it themselves.

[Scott]

Yes, and what is interesting about that is that the Republicans OPPOSED his efforts to resolve the Iraq issue at the time, and the Lewisnki issues served to totally distract the country from the important issue at hand.According to the former Mrs. President (from her speech linked previously), the Clinton policy in Iraq during most of the Clinton years was "containment". Former Mr. President changed the strategy (President's perogotive) to regime change in 1998. 202 republican congressmen supported it (H.R. 4655) in 1998 (passed whole house 360-38 on 10/05/98), and the senate passed it unanimuosly on 10/07/98. Clinton signed it on 10/31/98. Source (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm)

It's not Clinton's action on Iraq that was opposed, it was the timing of the action...the day before his impeachment vote.Source (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/981216-bill.htm)

Even at that, regardless od Clinton's motives (which I personnaly believe were to "wag the dog") the 1998 bombing of Iraq was the right thing to do.

Of course if you have other examples of rep. obstructionism to Clinton's plans for war with Iraq prior to 4th quarter 1998 or after Jan 1999, I'd be happy to see them.

Anyway, here's more sources, most straight from the horses mouth so you can make up your own mind instead of having some left or right wing web site tell you what to think.

Pelosi (http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm)

Liberman--and I quote-- (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01120705.htm) "As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq."

Gore (http://www.gore2004us.com/gorespeech2.html)

Uncle Teddy (http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html)

Rocky (http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html)

Wax-on/Wax-off Man (http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm)

Kerry (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html)

a-u-p, what did Hillary's statement say about Saddam and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?

Who gives a rat's a$$ if she thinks we shouldn't have gone it alone if necessary? I'm sure that she, just like you, would prefer that we Americans only fight wars on our soil.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Scott

Who gives a rat's a$$ if she thinks we shouldn't have gone it alone if necessary? I'm sure that she, just like you, would prefer that we Americans only fight wars on our soil.

Just about sums it up, doesn't it. If wars are only fought on other people's soil, then all is right with the world. Except for those other people, I guess.

[Scott]

Cowardly refusal to answer the question asked of you noted.

Let's try another!

Where would you prefer Australia fight a war, in Australia or on enemy soil?

[clk]

Scott, thanks for starting a new thread about this. I'm going to post my reply to you in this thread:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scott


We're all of these d'rats lying too?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Probably. I remember during the Clinton administration, news would often come out about how Iraq was just months away from building a nuclear weapon, blah blah blah. But the thing is, these reports would come out twice a year, every year! The same thing happened with Bush, before the war. I think that Bush knew that Saddam was not a threat. Bush probably believed that Iraq had a small stockpile of WMDs, and all he had to do was find this stockpile and show it to the country to justify the war. However, the question is whether Bush deliberately exaggerated evidence or outright lied. Bush knew that the documents that he quoted were not credible. He used them as a source anyways. I call that a lie. Bill, Hillary, and everyone else are irrelevant.
I think much of the intelligence Bush presented was also exaggerated. However, there's no way to confirm this, since the sources are classified. Bill, Hillary, and the other Dems would probably agree that North Korea is a major threat and has WMDs. Does that give Bush the right to exaggerate or lie? I don't think so.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scott

The British still stands by their intellegence on this one. No Bush lie here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you referring to the Niger claim? If so, then the British are basing their intelligence on a fake document. The CIA and the International Atomic Energy Agency both believe the documents to be bogus.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scott

Just because it was unverified by the CIA means it's a lie?
Why is it that we only want to trust the CIA (or any branch of government for that matter) when it enforces our own political beliefs?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The CIA said that there was significant doubt about whether the Niger claim was credible. Wilson wrote a report about it, as well. Why would Bush refer to them despite this? I think he just took whatever evidence he could find, bogus or not, and used it to scare the public. All of this resulted in the public supporting the war on Iraq.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Scott
Cowardly refusal to answer the question asked of you noted.

Let's try another!

Where would you prefer Australia fight a war, in Australia or on enemy soil?

Cowardly? I just see things from a different perspective to you. As does much of the rest of the world. The US is the sole world superpower. It's foreign policy is based on it's own interests. It's own interests are not necessarily going to be for the benefit of the people it affects. Look at the current war in Iraq. The US focus is on American casualties. Yet far more Iraqis have died in this war than Americans.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Cowardly? I just see things from a different perspective to you. As does much of the rest of the world. The US is the sole world superpower. It's foreign policy is based on it's own interests. It's own interests are not necessarily going to be for the benefit of the people it affects. Look at the current war in Iraq. The US focus is on American casualties. Yet far more Iraqis have died in this war than Americans.

Now try answering Scott's question rather than evading it.

[Malachi151]

According to the former Mrs. President (from her speech linked previously), the Clinton policy in Iraq during most of the Clinton years was "containment". Former Mr. President changed the strategy (President's perogotive) to regime change in 1998. 202 republican congressmen supported it (H.R. 4655) in 1998 (passed whole house 360-38 on 10/05/98), and the senate passed it unanimuosly on 10/07/98. Clinton signed it on 10/31/98. Source

There was initial support for the measure, yes, but then that support was pulled out from under him before any positive action could take place. In later 98 and 99 he did not have Republican support for his position on Iraq, Bin Laden, or North Korea.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Doubt


Now try answering Scott's question rather than evading it.

It's like asking a scientist to prove that their aren't ghosts. He is living in a reality that is different to mine. I am saying, there aren't any ghosts, he is living in a world where ghosts exist.

[Frank Newgent]

Bill on Saddam's WMDs (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/)

In a visit to Iowa Monday, Bob Smith of New Hampshire,
a potential presidential hopeful, suggested that Clinton
had lost the "moral authority" to order air strikes against Iraq.

http://wso.williams.edu/~mhacker/Strangelove/strangelove2.jpg

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Doubt


Now try answering Scott's question rather than evading it.

Scott's premise is that Saddam could somehow attack the US. I think this (http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war27.html) cartoon (20/10/03- contains cuss words) says it all.

[Scott]

Originally posted by clk

I think that Bush knew that Saddam was not a threat. Bush probably believed that Iraq had a small stockpile of WMDs,...The entire world believed Saddam was a threat and had WMDs. They still do. The question is now, what did he do with them?

Did he hide them in-country? A real possibility since the quantitity he had previously admitted to in '98 (if I recall right) would be akin to looking for an amount that would fill a typical in-ground residential swimming pool--and we're looking for that in a country the size of--what--California.

Did he get them out of country before the attacks. Another plausible option.

Did he destroy them just prior to the attacks? Maybe.

Did he destroy them a few years ago and then just go on like he still had them to save face? Stupid, but Saddam's no genious, so that's possible too.

The question isn't wether or not he had them, he did. The entire international community is in agreement on that he did. The question is what did he do with them?

Originally posted by clk

However, the question is whether Bush deliberately exaggerated evidence or outright lied. Bush knew that the documents that he quoted were not credible. He used them as a source anyways. I call that a lie.The British still maintain that their intellegence is accurate. The British also maintain that their intellegence is/was not based on the sources used to attack Bush's statements.

Originally posted by clk

Bill, Hillary, and the other Dems would probably agree that North Korea is a major threat and has WMDs.I agree with you, and believe that the d'rats would stand by Bush action in NK, right up until the moment of action. Then they'd start the same BS they're doing now.

Nevertheless, NK is a completely different situation. It has neighbors that are willing to deal with them, Iraq didn't. It was obvious from the get-go that NK was trying to extort money from the US.

Originally posted by clk

Wilson wrote a report about it, as well.I sincerely doubt anything that Wilson would have ever said would have supported Bush. It was a stupid choice to send him to Niger to investigate and not follow up with additional investigations. (of course the admin may have followed up with additional intel, and we're just not hearing about it for whatever reason)

Originally posted by clk

I think he just took whatever evidence he could find, bogus or not, and used it to scare the public.That's fair, and although I disagree, your point is well made.

I think the evidence that is currently, publicly available still supports the actions taken. Two sides of the same coin.

Originally posted by a-u-p

Cowardly?Yes, cowardly.

How different of a perspective can there be in Hillary's statement? It's a simple answer, you could have even cut and pasted it.

But you chose not to because of some BS claim of perspective.

What, a-u-p, does your perspective say about Hillary's comments on Saddam's weapons?

Better yet, find your perspective, fax, email or just provide them with the link to Hillary's statement. Ask your perspective to review it, and tell you what the answer to the following question is. (Don't forget to ask for permission from your perspective to post the answer):

Does Hillary's statement say: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."?

1. YES. Hillary's statement says "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

2. NO. Hillary's statement does not say "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

3. My perspective advises me not to answer the question.

4. All of the answers are correct.

And, your not even allowed by your perspective to have an opinion on the following question!?

- Where would you prefer Australia fight a war, in Australia or on enemy soil?

Originally posted by Malichi151

There was initial support for the measure, yes, but then that support was pulled out from under him before any positive action could take place. In later 98 and 99 he did not have Republican support for his position on Iraq, Bin Laden, or North Korea.Sources?

Originally posted by a-u-p

He is living in a reality that is different to mine.To quote yourself, "Just about sums it up, doesn't it?"

I don't think you're living in any reality.

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Thanks for the link, but the little bit there hardly constitutes rep. obstructionism. You'll recall Levin's letter said baiscally the same thing, get congressional input.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Scott's premise is that Saddam could somehow attack the US.Yes, but I don't think he would have done it directly. I think he would have passed on WMDs to terrorist groups to attack both the US, any number of our allies, and his neighbors.

Even at that, and with all due respect, your answer does not provide a reasonable explanation for a-u-p's refusal to answer.

[clk]

Originally posted by Scott

I agree with you, and believe that the d'rats would stand by Bush action in NK, right up until the moment of action. Then they'd start the same BS they're doing now.


Yes, you're probably right. I didn't mean to give the impression that I would support a war with North Korea. I think that would bring countless casualties, and that is the main reason why we should first try all other options. I don't know how quick Democrats would be to support action against NK. I think they would prefer that we build an international coalition first. The administration rushed into Iraq, and they did not take the proper time to plan out what we would do after we won. I think that's the main complaint the Democrats have against Bush, and it's a valid one.


Nevertheless, NK is a completely different situation. It has neighbors that are willing to deal with them, Iraq didn't. It was obvious from the get-go that NK was trying to extort money from the US.


Yes, you're right. However, I don't think we're doing enough to solve the problem. North Korea may already have acquired nukes, and if that is the case, they may be able to blackmail us again. The situation was not managed well from the beginning. I was astounded when Bush made an "Axis of Evil" and then put Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in it. What was the reason for this? It only made Kim Jong Il more paranoid (as if he's not crazy enough). That statement basically told North Korea to prepare for war, and that's what they are doing now, by preparing nuclear weapons. North Korea is evil, of course, but there is no point in angering your enemy.


I think the evidence that is currently, publicly available still supports the actions taken. Two sides of the same coin.


I think the evidence supports the fact that Saddam had WMD at some point in the past. However, I don't think he was a threat to the US. OBL is a much bigger threat, and so is NK, in my opinion. Saddam may have been evil, but I don't think he was stupid enough to attack the US either directly or indirectly. He knew that we could easily end his regime. All of his hate was directed inward into Iraq, not outward. As I said before, I think the Bush administration scared the public into thinking Iraq was a bigger and badder threat than it really was. I remember viewing other message boards on the internet, and seeing people making statements such as: "I'm glad Bush got rid of Saddam. Now Iraq can't fly their bombers over here and drop nuclear weapons on us." The truth, of course, was that Iraq didn't even have an Air Force, much less a nuclear weapon. However, the barrage of information presented in Bush's State of the Union led people to think otherwise. He never said that Saddam had bombers that could fly nuclear weapons here, but that's how spin works...people thought that if Iraq had nuclear weapons, than surely they must also have a great anti-American army, Air Force, and Navy as well.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Scott
Thanks for the link, but the little bit there hardly constitutes rep. obstructionism. You'll recall Levin's letter said baiscally the same thing, get congressional input.

That quote from Dr. Strangelove or Bob Smith or Merkwuerdigich-liebehttp or whatever one calls a chucklehead able to say
what he did came from your link (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/). First on this thread. Hard to keep these things straight, isn't it?

Long as we're on the subject, check out he paragraph subsequent to the one I quoted.

"He has a severe credibility problem. He has it with the media. He has it with the American people.... If he can't tell me the truth about this, is he telling me the truth about Iraq?" Smith said.

Remind you of anyone?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It's like asking a scientist to prove that their aren't ghosts. He is living in a reality that is different to mine. I am saying, there aren't any ghosts, he is living in a world where ghosts exist.
Nicely said except your world is the one full of ghosts -- the milk of human kindness -- crap like that. Hmm, yeah, delusional is the word we need for your worldview.