PDA

View Full Version : Bill Clinton agrees with Bush



2centsworth
11-16-2005, 03:25 PM
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/


Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/attack.jpg) against Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/iraq.baghdad.lg.jpg).

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.



'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'



The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.



Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs



Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/images/special.report.strike..gif (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/)•Timeline (javascript:openWindow('/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/timeline/index.html', 'timeline', 'width=510,height=400'))
•Maps (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/iraq.maps/)
•Where They Stand (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/iraq.maps/where.they.stand/)
•Flashback 1991 (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/9802/gulf.war.recap/prelude/)
•Forces in the Gulf (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/military/)
•Bioweapons Explainer (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/9803/weapon.search/)
•Message Boards (http://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?13@@.ee703fb)
•UNSCOM Documents (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/unscom.html)
•Related Links (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/links.html)



"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

gtownspur
11-16-2005, 03:49 PM
Conservative are called chicken hawks for Talking tough and then following through it. DEmocrats are called Geniuses for talking tough and then pussy bombing asprin factories and a camel.

spurster
11-16-2005, 06:29 PM
So how many US troops died from Clinton's actions? How many $100 billions were spent? How effective was it?

Mr. Peabody
11-16-2005, 06:33 PM
Conservative are called chicken hawks for Talking tough and then following through it.

I thought they were called chicked hawks because they all avoided service in the military.

Oh, Gee!!
11-16-2005, 06:33 PM
So how many US troops died from Clinton's actions? How many $100 billions were spent? How effective was it?


but, but, but...you don't understand. He got oral-sex from a woman that he was not married to. impeachable. (faints)

Mr. Peabody
11-16-2005, 06:47 PM
but, but, but...you don't understand. He got oral-sex from a woman that he was not married to. impeachable. (faints)

Think of the children. Won't somebody please think of the children!

http://www.die-simpsons.de/pic-db/pic-upload/norm/pics/flanders/maude.jpg

gtownspur
11-17-2005, 01:08 AM
Serving in the military or not serving in the military is pointless when it comes to decision to executing wars. It did not help George BUsh 1 when he decided to go to war in Iraq.

gtownspur
11-17-2005, 01:14 AM
Think of the children. Won't somebody please think of the children!

http://www.die-simpsons.de/pic-db/pic-upload/norm/pics/flanders/maude.jpg

FUck you! if one thinks divorce does not affect children, then they are selfish bastards. Like i said, talk to any child that has been through a mess like that. To just leave your wife and kids for selfish reasons is not honorable. The state should take action to limit those situations since it has more to do with many of our societal ills than just abandoned children. So Take your cheapshots if they so suit you. I hope if you have children you wouldnt leave your wife just because you had a hard on for another woman. That's pathetic and that makes you less of a man.

Nbadan
11-17-2005, 05:38 AM
Well, not exactly...


The United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday, citing the lack of planning for what would happen after dictator Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done, " Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai.

"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

Clinton did however say that the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution, and the holding of parliamentary elections.

LINK (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132053866236&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Ocotillo
11-17-2005, 08:35 AM
FUck you! if one thinks divorce does not affect children, then they are selfish bastards. Like i said, talk to any child that has been through a mess like that. To just leave your wife and kids for selfish reasons is not honorable. The state should take action to limit those situations since it has more to do with many of our societal ills than just abandoned children. So Take your cheapshots if they so suit you. I hope if you have children you wouldnt leave your wife just because you had a hard on for another woman. That's pathetic and that makes you less of a man.

What does divorce have to to do with this thread? Are you changing the subject to Newt Gingrich?

boutons
11-17-2005, 09:19 AM
"allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world"

Prostrated by the Gulf War, boycotted/embargoed, nailed down by US aeriel surveillance and intense satellite scrutiny, all Saddam had to use against enemy Iran, etc was bluffing about nasty WMD stuff he hadn't had since the Gulf War.

The UN inspectors couldn't find it, the CIA couldn't offer any solid, irrefutable proof that he had it (have been covering their asses knowing they would be blamed if it weren't found), the invading US military couldn't find it, because WMD just wasn't there.

But the Repubs had the Nov 2003 Pres election in full swing, so they start a bogus war ASAP (the election campaing schedule). If they win the war at "slam dunk" speed, they win the election as war heroes. If they don't finish the war by November, The Great American People would never vote out a Pres in the middle of a war.

The Repubs turned Saddam's bluffing (the Repubs and Saddam could form The Liars and Bluffers International Mutual Admiration Society) into Repub lies to start a bogus war in order to win the Nov 03 election, when the real threat to USA was elsewhere.

Swift Boat etc was just part of a larger campaign to "demilitarize" VN vet Kerry and make the Dems look soft, while trying to make Viet-Nam-war-evaders dubya & dickhead look like warriors. Sorry, they are still war evaders. The Great American People, well about half of them, were fooled, 2000+ American lives are wasted by the hard-ass murderous fakers they elected.

This current dubya/dickhead "everybody THOUGHT Saddam had WMD" tactic is trying to get The American People to ignore the key point that group-think in an "inside the Beltway" echo chamber, rather than hard evidence, isn't a basis for starting a war.

dubya/dickhead/rove/connie/rummny/Powell/etc ABSOLUTELY ALONE are responsible for pushing hard for this war, knowing tht the Repub majorities in Congress would rubber-stamp it without close consideration and serious debate. Sure, a lot of weak-ass Dems didn't want to look soft on (fake) threats, so they went along with no-evidence bullshit, but they cannot be tarred now with PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY for the war fiasco.

DarkReign
11-17-2005, 09:55 AM
What does divorce have to to do with this thread? Are you changing the subject to Newt Gingrich?

No, hardcore Gtown is just sensitive. Most issues all comeback to the children, therefore if you dont agree, you must not like children.

See the logic?







me neither

gtownspur
11-17-2005, 06:42 PM
^Not all issues comeback to children, and if that were so, then i'd oppose going to war by any means, back universal healthcare, support the government to censor sexually explicit innuendos on television.

My point was that if the state allowed people to liberally divorce as they please, then the family unit in our society would disinegrate worse than it already is. Children as a consequence would suffer first. It's not an argument built on emotion, just logic. For every cause there is an effect.

But since you have a destitute view of marriage and commitment, me slapping reality in your face made you stutter like a bafoon. You then had to resort to cheapshots to prove that my argument was all an emotional infomercial on the children.

With your ignorance, i can see you bash anyone who wanted stricter penalties on Child predators in the name of protecting kids.

Face it. You don't use logic, and you self justify the unjustifiable. And you are an idealogue. You may not have solely conventional left or right views, but you advance your views and justify them like any extremist on either spectrum.
NEXT!