Comments on: Obama On Iraq, Economy, Clinton
Harry Smith Talks With The Presidential Hopeful About Some Of The Campaign's Biggest Issues
Add a Comment See all 277 Comments
- It doesn''''t matter that we invaded a country for no reason?
It doesn''''t matter that Bush turned Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists?
Posted by hungry1968 at 11:46 AM : Mar 28, 2008
The raw ignorance, the incredible stupidity that it takes to launch a land invasion of Iraq was something that Clinton was far too intelligent to do. Sadly Bush never had a problem with being too smart. Personally I think it''s all that coke he used to snort. - Reply to this comment
- Getting back to RamaLamaObama. He has nothing new to offer the American people other than old world marxism/socialism. We don''t need someone to portray the american people as victims. He does and he profits from it, too. The Democratic Party is no longer a party of the people. It wants power at all costs and control of the free market, healthcare and the people. These people will destroy America. And people like hungry 1968 should get their passports in order and find a nice communist country and enjoy what the have to offer. I have better things to do with my life that pander to Big Titty Nanny Government.
- Reply to this comment
- Really. Well truth is he dismanteled Intel. If you don''''t have accurate info, what were you informing and who would take you seriously. After all, when did clinton ever do anything seriously.
Posted by mudrose at 11:52 AM : Mar 28, 2008
If the truth is that Clinton dismantled intel, then why was all the intel pouring in prior to 9/11 warning of the pending attacks? - Reply to this comment
- Twice in 1998, Bill Clinton deployed the military force of the United States at moments when the scandal stories threatening him were reaching their most dangerous stages. The evening before Monica Lewinsky was to appear before the grand jury, Clinton struck at targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in purported revenge for the bombing of American embassies earlier that summer. In December, on the evening before the House vote on impeachment, Clinton suddenly launched an attack on Iraq, claiming the necessity of acting in advance of a fast-approaching Ramadan.
Posted by mudrose at 11:52 AM : Mar 28, 2008
So you blame Clinton for not doing anything about the attacks on the embassies, WTC, or the USS Cole.
Then 5 minutes later you post a passage proving that he DID DO something about those attacks.
Can you make up your mind?!?!?! - Reply to this comment
- Continuing the policy directions set by his predecessor, President Clinton has recurrently applied military force against Iraq throughout his Administration. Early in his presidency, President Clinton used cruise missiles against Baghdad in response to a foiled assassination attempt against ex-President Bush during his visit to Kuwait in early 1993.39 On December 16, 1998, on the eve of his impeachment by the House of Representatives, President Clinton launched another round of cruise missiles against Iraq, in response to Iraq''s repudiation of the U.N. regime for supervising elimination of weapons of mass destruction.40 One plausible legal basis for these actions (and various other actions throughout his presidency) could be the Iraq Resolution of January 14, 1991, which by its terms conferred open-ended authority on the President to use U.S. armed forces to achieve implementation of a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the last of which authorized U.N. member states not only to assist in ejecting Iraq from Kuwait but also "to restore international peace and security in the region."41 As required by the Iraq Resolution, the Administration has periodically reported to Congress on its efforts to achieve compliance with the Security Council resolutions.42 The legislative branch has evidently accepted (or at least has taken no steps at odds with) the executive claim of sufficient authority to deal forcibly with Iraq throughout the 1990s.
- Reply to this comment
- Only Clinton%u2019s core cultists still believe that either of these acts were anything but distractions from the scandals then dominating the news. It quickly became apparent that the target in Sudan was nothing more than a pharmaceuticals factory. Indeed, the administration has made no credible effort to persuade anyone of its original claims that the factory was secretly engaged in the production of terrorist weaponry. As for the claims that Clinton%u2019s hand was forced in Iraq by his tender concerns for Muslim religious sensibilities, it is doubtful that anyone ever bought into such a transparently nonsensical story. Clinton%u2019s bombing raids actually continued into Ramadan. He never attacked any country. Right?
- Reply to this comment
- Sounds like intel was working perfectly when Clinton left office. The question you have to ask is why did Bush ignore all of the intel?
Posted by hungry1968
Really. Well truth is he dismanteled Intel. If you don''t have accurate info, what were you informing and who would take you seriously. After all, when did clinton ever do anything seriously.
Twice in 1998, Bill Clinton deployed the military force of the United States at moments when the scandal stories threatening him were reaching their most dangerous stages. The evening before Monica Lewinsky was to appear before the grand jury, Clinton struck at targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in purported revenge for the bombing of American embassies earlier that summer. In December, on the evening before the House vote on impeachment, Clinton suddenly launched an attack on Iraq, claiming the necessity of acting in advance of a fast-approaching Ramadan. - Reply to this comment
- Duh! He dismanteled intel.
Posted by mudrose at 11:44 AM : Mar 28, 2008
Really? Intel warned in January 2001, March 2001, July 2001, and August 2001 about the pending terrorist attacks, by terrorists that were going to hijack planes and fly them into our well known buildings / monuments / landmarks.
Intel also said that Iraq DID NOT have WMD''s.
Sounds like intel was working perfectly when Clinton left office. The question you have to ask is why did Bush ignore all of the intel? - Reply to this comment
- They weren''''''''t in Iraq, until George Bush liberated the insurgents, and made Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists by removing the well documented al Qaeda hater -- Saddam Hussein.
Posted by hungry1968
Doesn''''t matter, they are there now and I''''d rather them in Iraq than in America. But you can b/itch and moan and groan all you want. Clintoid wanted to contain Sadaam and was all for regime change. Thing is BigBoy is all talk and no action unless it comes to discharging his body fluids.
Posted by mudrose at 11:43 AM : Mar 28, 2008
It doesn''t matter that we invaded a country for no reason?
It doesn''t matter that Bush turned Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists? - Reply to this comment
- So then why didn''''t Clinton invade Iraq?
Because he didn''''t have proof of WMD''''s!!! He didn''''t have proof, so he didn''''t invade!!!
Bush didn''''t have proof, and he did invade!!!
Who made the foreign policy disaster?
Duh!
Posted by hungry1968
Duh! He dismanteled intel. - Reply to this comment
- By their lack of action in the face of growing terrorist assaults, the Clinton administration exhibited a policy of appeasement. The underlying idea exhibited by Clinton, in his lack of response to the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombings of Khobar Towers, the American Embassies in Nairobi and Dar el Salaam, and the USS Cole, was that it was bad for the United States to make the terrorists mad. The contention was that a military response would contribute to more terrorism so therefore it was best to do absolutely nothing, which was what Clinton essentially did. The terrorists were emboldened every time America failed to respond to the point that they were able to glibly cross American airport turnstiles on Sept. 11, 2001 and turn American passenger planes into missiles.
Posted by mudrose at 11:37 AM : Mar 28, 2008
The people that blew up WTC in 1993, were arrested and are currently being incarcerated in a federal penitentiary.
In retaliation for the embassy bombings, Clinton blew up the bomb making factory in Sudan, and launched strikes on a known bin Laden hide out, where intelligence said bin Laden was at the time. Remember "Wag the dog"?
The USS Cole was attacked just before Clinton left office, so he didn''t have time to react to it.
What else did you want him to do? - Reply to this comment
- They weren''''t in Iraq, until George Bush liberated the insurgents, and made Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists by removing the well documented al Qaeda hater -- Saddam Hussein.
Posted by hungry1968 at 11:40 AM : Mar 28, 2008
100% correct and the Clinton Doctrine also never called for the total insanity of a land invasion of Iraq. Only Bush and the neocons are that ignorant. - Reply to this comment
- They weren''''t in Iraq, until George Bush liberated the insurgents, and made Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists by removing the well documented al Qaeda hater -- Saddam Hussein.
Posted by hungry1968
Doesn''t matter, they are there now and I''d rather them in Iraq than in America. But you can b/itch and moan and groan all you want. Clintoid wanted to contain Sadaam and was all for regime change. Thing is BigBoy is all talk and no action unless it comes to discharging his body fluids. - Reply to this comment
- Today, the Clinton doctrine gains steam in the west even as Iran moves at breakneck speed toward developing a nuclear bomb and terror plots are uncovered with greater frequency. Great Britain removed any mention of the Holocaust against the Jews of Europe from their school curriculum out of fear that such teaching %u201Coffended%u201D a Muslim population which denies the Holocaust.
Yes, let''s forget the holocaust so we can have more. - Reply to this comment
- You can argue all you want. Point is Al-Qaeda has been in Iraq and still is. That''''s the reality and the Clinton Doctrine.
Posted by mudrose at 11:35 AM : Mar 28, 2008
They weren''t in Iraq, until George Bush liberated the insurgents, and made Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists by removing the well documented al Qaeda hater -- Saddam Hussein. - Reply to this comment
- In complete contrast, The Bush doctrine calls for resolute military action against the aggressor as the best means of reducing and eventually eliminating the threat. According to this belief, standing up for freedom will rally freedom lovers everywhere. By declaring the moral superiority of our liberal democratic system over the system represented by the Islamic extremists, Bush believes he will lead the way toward the same result as did similar declarations made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt over Nazism and President Ronald Reagan over Soviet Communism. It should be noted that both Nazism and Communism had their share of American appeasers in their day.
- Reply to this comment
- The Clinton Doctrine essentially is a response to the threat of WMD and a statement of the willingness of the United States "to shoulder the principal responsibility for their containment" While the United States, ideally, would prefer to contain WMD with the aid of multinational organizations, "the United States will act alone if necessary" In closing, Trainor suggests that the President''''s legacy "will not be *** and scandal, rather it will be the Clinton Doctrine "
Posted by mudrose at 11:34 AM : Mar 28, 2008
So then why didn''t Clinton invade Iraq?
Because he didn''t have proof of WMD''s!!! He didn''t have proof, so he didn''t invade!!!
Bush didn''t have proof, and he did invade!!!
Who made the foreign policy disaster?
Duh! - Reply to this comment
- The Clinton doctrine is carried forth today by Democrats who blame America for the terrorists who seek to overturn the will of millions of Iraqis who voted in the first free election held in the region in history. While American servicemen selflessly and valiantly work to help the infant Iraqi government secure democracy in a region that has never known freedom, America, according to the advocates of the Clinton doctrine, is to blame for the very murderers who seek to stop that infant democracy. This twisted belief is false and dangerous.
- Reply to this comment
- By their lack of action in the face of growing terrorist assaults, the Clinton administration exhibited a policy of appeasement. The underlying idea exhibited by Clinton, in his lack of response to the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombings of Khobar Towers, the American Embassies in Nairobi and Dar el Salaam, and the USS Cole, was that it was bad for the United States to make the terrorists mad. The contention was that a military response would contribute to more terrorism so therefore it was best to do absolutely nothing, which was what Clinton essentially did. The terrorists were emboldened every time America failed to respond to the point that they were able to glibly cross American airport turnstiles on Sept. 11, 2001 and turn American passenger planes into missiles.
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by hungry1968
You can argue all you want. Point is Al-Qaeda has been in Iraq and still is. That''s the reality and the Clinton Doctrine. - Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
