Was Clinton a good president?

So what everyone is saying is that the CIA and all his advisors said "Boss there is absolutely no weapons of mass destruction and on top of that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Al Qaeda was ever linked with Iraq. And Bush said "I don't care I want his balls” and then lies, knowing full well there was conclusive infallible evidence to the fact that Saddam had nothing more than a few AK-47s and old SCUDS and that he was absolutely not hiding anything?”

That is was all a carefully calculated ruse to oust a dictator?

bballad said:

Quote:

---

I expect a politition to lie its part of the job, its the hipocracy

---

Of course you'd expect politicians to lie, it's the only way anyone could justify to themselves voting for Clinton :p . It's supprising that you'd bring up the "hipocracy" that Bush is allegedly guilty for; as the left is so good at generating lies and propaganda I didn't think you'd give Bush credit for his lame attempt to destroy the nation :rolleyes: after all, that has been the left's game for decades. Honestly, he got one of his facts wrong and now the whole world is after him because of a mistake. It's not like it made a difference anyhow; we were going in there whether or not that sentence was said or left unsaid. This is just a way for the left to regain some of it's credibility after their embarassing take on the war.

Didn't Clinton have a chance to get bin laden? Didn't he give secrets to the Chinese in return for campaign donations? Bush isn't any better. Lied about Iraq, has made questionable economic desicions, is reversing environmental laws. The tax cuts mainly benefit the wealthy. Sure, they pay more in federal income taxes, but poorer people pay more in Social Security taxes. Social Security only applies to incomes up to around 80,000. That means A-Rod only pays Social Security on 80,000 and the 24,920,000 is left untaxed. Local property taxes and sales taxes take a greater percentage of lower income workers. The income tax passed because the people believed only the wealthiest would be taxed. Richer people benefit more from the low capital gains tax. People should be outraged that capital gains are taxed less than the working man's earned income.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed

That is was all a carefully calculated ruse to oust a dictator?

---

No, it was all a carefully calculated ruse to gain control over middle east oil supplies and shipping routes. Granted, the Iraqis sell the oil, but Uncle Sam controls it. WMD's (or the fear they inspired) were a perfect excuse. Ousting Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people was merely an added bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Striek


No, it was all a carefully calculated ruse to gain control over middle east oil supplies and shipping routes. Granted, the Iraqis sell the oil, but Uncle Sam controls it. WMD's (or the fear they inspired) were a perfect excuse. Ousting Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people was merely an added bonus.

---

Was oil contributing factor to invading Iraq? I don't think that anyone would deny that possibility. But, during the time leading up to the invasion of Iraq; I cannot recall one country, besides Iraq, making the claim that Iraq did not have WMDs. Not even the French contested the possibility that Iraq was harboring WMDs. That is why the UN never lifted the sanctions against Iraq. The "protest" at the UN revolved around wanting more time to conduct inspections, where the Iraqi government interference was difficult at best.

I do not know anyone that believes that Iraq was completely forthcoming with its weapons capabilities. Especially when unstated and illegal warheads were discovered during the 2nd round of UN inspections prior to invading Iraq. Thus the continual and ongoing policy of deception condoned by the Iraqi government was once again revealed. 12 years was more than enough time for Iraq to come clean about it's weapons programs. If Iraq had been openly honest and allowed the UN inspectors to do their jobs in the first place, Iraq would not be an occupied country at this time.

By the way if you are really into the "Conspiracy Theory" bit, just go rent the movie and leave the intelligent discussions to people that aren't paranoid.

Of course they had illegal weapons, and of course they were doing their best to hide them. The French and their posse were content to give Iraq all the time in the world, even when they were presented with satellite photos and those illegal missiles were found, just because the anti-war stance was the popular thing at the time. This just gave Iraq all the time it needed to move those weapons to anywhere they pleased before the invasion, with all the extensions to the deadlines that the UN agreed on. Sometimes I think that the entire world has gone over to the dark (left) side... :rolleyes:

I rather enjoyed Conspiracy Theory, by the way

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by TheRepublican
Of course they had illegal weapons, and of course they were doing their best to hide them. The French and their posse were content to give Iraq all the time in the world, even when they were presented with satellite photos and those illegal missiles were found, just because the anti-war stance was the popular thing at the time. This just gave Iraq all the time it needed to move those weapons to anywhere they pleased before the invasion, with all the extensions to the deadlines that the UN agreed on. Sometimes I think that the entire world has gone over to the dark (left) side... :rolleyes:

I rather enjoyed Conspiracy Theory, by the way

---

Humm if he had those weapons why didn't he use them? or are you going to spew some crap about an iraq unwillingness to fight the us troops...i think the hundreds of us soldiers dead (not counting the thousands wounded) would dispute that.

Lets ignore the fact that nonconventional weapons (biological and chemical) are not WMD's (fule air and Nukes), and lets ignore the fact that noneconventionals are basicly useless unless you are dealing wiht a mass of unequiped troops who cannot leave the area they are in (gas attacks in japan have shown that gas agenst civilian targets are not devistating) and just look at the fact the iraq had no means of dilvering any weapons to anywhere....how where they an imidiate threat?

http://disarmament.un.org:8080/Treat...D?OpenDocument

http://disarmament.un.org:8080/Treat...3?OpenDocument

Biological and chemical weapons are WMD's.

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000195.html

A theory as to the first issue.

Quote:

---

Lets ignore the fact that nonconventional weapons (biological and chemical) are not WMD's (fule air and Nukes), and lets ignore the fact that noneconventionals are basicly useless unless you are dealing wiht a mass of unequiped troops who cannot leave the area they are in (gas attacks in japan have shown that gas agenst civilian targets are not devistating) and just look at the fact the iraq had no means of dilvering any weapons to anywhere....how where they an imidiate threat?

---

Number 1 - I would say the threat of U.S. retaliation had something to do with the lack of WMD's being used. I would also say that the speed of the U.S. advance did not allow Iraq ample time to constitute the chemical weapons for deployment.

Number 2 - Your wrong. Chemical and Biological weapons are considered to be WMDs. After 11 years of being an Intelligence Analyst , with a four year stint with an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit, in the United States military, I definately know the definition of a WMD.

Number 3 - Your partially right. A prepared unit can overcome a Chemical or Biological attack if the warning sensors are deployed upwind and can positively identify the malicious agent. This also depends on the delivery means and placement of the air burst. If the release is directly over a unit, say goodbye to that unit because it will not have any warning. Also if you are going to lob munitions, from outside the contaminated area, on top of a unit that is under a chemical attack and dressed in full protective gear. It is much easier to kill your enemy. The protective gear is heavy, hot, cumbersome, and difficult to communicate through.

Number 4 - Your wrong. The gas attacks used in Japan, I am assuming you are referring to the Sarin attacks used in the subways. You need to understand the agent before you state a fact. Sarin is a nerve agent that kills, period. Yes you can survive if you receive a non-lethal dose but you will suffer from its afteraffects for life, and often pass down medical problems to your unborn children because of it.

Number 5 - Your wrong. Chemical warheads could have been easily fitted to Iraqs existing munitions. You don't have to have a high tech missle to deliver chemical or biological agents. Even mortars, crop dusting planes, or unmanned drones can deliver these leathal chemicals.

[QUOTE]
Humm if he had those weapons why didn't he use them? or are you going to spew some crap about an iraq unwillingness to fight the us troops...i think the hundreds of us soldiers dead (not counting the thousands wounded) would dispute that.
[QUOTE]

Number 6 - It's one thing to be an expert using hindsight, with hindsight being 20/20. The bigger question is what crystal ball did you use to definitively prove that Iraq did not have WMD's? All of the indicators of probable WMD's were there. The simple fact is that Saddam gambled and lost.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
So what everyone is saying is that the CIA and all his advisors said "Boss there is absolutely no weapons of mass destruction and on top of that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Al Qaeda was ever linked with Iraq. And Bush said "I don't care I want his balls” and then lies, knowing full well there was conclusive infallible evidence to the fact that Saddam had nothing more than a few AK-47s and old SCUDS and that he was absolutely not hiding anything?”

That is was all a carefully calculated ruse to oust a dictator?

---

Personally, I think it was a pissing match. I dont think there were any weapons of mass destruction. I think that Bush just wanted to create a war to finance all his buddies, but hey, thats my opinion.

Now we have to think about the fact that we have PISSED off the entire world (besides Britian and a couple countries) and made America look like a huge bully that will invade any country it wants on a small amount of evidence. Now we are putting America 80 Billion dollars more in debt (with only 20 going to reconstruction and the rest going to the millitary) and I have to wonder "Why was invading Iraq a good thing again?" Oh yeah, we were liberating the oil, I mean Iraqi people.