Why is Clinton allowed to bomb Iraq?

[M1A2U2]

My question is this: Where were all the protesting democrats when Clinton bombed Iraq and "killed all the innocent civilians". How come in 1998 Tom Daschle said, "This is a time to send Saddam Hussein as clear a message as we know how to send that we will not tolerate the broken promises and the tremendous acceleration of development of weapons that we've seen time and time again in Iraq." Daschle said this and no one seems to notice or care. Democrats still moan on about how there are no weapons of mass destruction when only 5 years ago they were making the same argument Bush is making. Has Daschle forgot his ingenious statement? or was he just following his party like a lying b**tard? What do you all think would have happened if Clinton invaded Iraq?

[Seoulstriker]

well, these are the same democrats that supposedly stand for human rights yet are fine with what hussein was doing to the iraqis.

bottom line: democrats can say anything they want and get away with it. just like how wesley clark supported president bush and was supporting the iraq war and wrote editorials in strong support but months later (2 in fact :cantbeli: ) he can say that he never supported the war and was always against it.

starving student, the democratic party is falling apart. teh only person who could save it would be hillary clinton.

oh wait, that's not the clinton's secret plan. :P

[Merik]

No they only agree with what the president does as long as the president is a democrat. Think about, they dont want a Republican to get all the glory for ridding the world of Saddam when their own ****up Clinton didnt have the balls to put boots on the ground there.

[Fox2]

An aquaintance of mine is of the opinion that Bush is the devil incarnate and Clinton was one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever seen.

In the middle of one of her spouts about the injustice Bush is doing to the Iraqi people and how Clinton would do so much better, I asked her bluntly, "Did you know that Clinton committed adultery, then deliberately lied to a Federal court about that adultery, and involved US troops in 3 major conflicts all during his time as President?"

She brushed it all off and kept on going.


I respect Clark for his time in the service. I have no respect for Clark as a politician. He's flip-flopped over and over and it's getting tiresome.


Hillary Clinton.

Trying....to....stay calm......

rofl

Ahem. Sorry.

[SeanAshi]

http://www.im-c.com/daschle-1.jpg

[Seoulstriker]

i can't stand clinton and the majority of the country can't stand him. or his wife hillary.

the liberals are having orgasms over the thought of hillary becoming president. what people don't realize is that the majority of the country either hate her or loathe her. she better not try to run for president. :backhand:

[GazB]

I don't like Bush much, and I didn't like Clinton either. (Didn't care much for Clintons husbund too.)

[SeanAshi]

Hillary wears the pants in that family

[AFG]

lol so true :lol:

http://members.cox.net/_themacallan/_Priceless.jpg

[budanski]

Full text: Clinton announces Iraq strikes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/235000/images/_236858_clinton150.jpg

transcript (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/texts_and_transcripts/236858.stm)

Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes and its military capacity to threaten its neighbours.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbours or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called Unscom. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first seven and a half years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

'Saddam will use these weapons again'

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly: Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran; and not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve Unscom as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to 0 to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations - Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman - warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister 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.

'The conclusions are profoundly disturbing'

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, Unscom's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars:

Iraq repeatedly blocked Unscom from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and Unscom has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted Unscom's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed Unscom's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons programme.

It tried to stop an Unscom biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering Unscom's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an Unscom inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the Unscom reports concludes, and again I quote:

'Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

'In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons programme.'

'Clear and present danger'

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why:


First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community - led by the United States - has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday - make no mistake - he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of US power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team - including the vice president, the secretary of defence, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser - I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbours. At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Moslem world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

'A long-term strategy to contain Iraq'

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people:

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbours, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programme, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion - resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food programme become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbours and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

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 neighbours, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbours, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbours. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Americans won't be distracted

Let me close by addressing one other issue. 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. 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.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[usa320]

rofl

lol

I agree- Hillary is a bastard...s(he) is ****ing up new york badly. Most new yorkers hate her, the only people that support her are unions and feminists.

The troops cant stand her. She got booed the second she landed in Kabul.

Slick willy is a prick too... While i am annoyed that the dems said nothing about his bombing of iraq, but threw a ****fit when bush finsihed the job, i wont condemn clinton for taking action, i feel hitting iraq was probably one of the only things he did right in his presidency, though he shoulda finished the job.

Just turned the TV off. The democrat response to Bush's adress made me want to vomit.

[M1A2U2]

Some good logic: i dont support Bush bombing iraq but i do support clinton bombing iraq. It seems these liberals only care about their political future and not about the lives of others

[venture160]

republicans care about their political future JUSt as much or more than the democrats do, so that statement is rediculous.

[Seoulstriker]

lol so true :lol:

http://members.cox.net/_themacallan/_Priceless.jpg

:lol:

are people familiar with hillary's trip to afghanistan?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/2/11616.shtml


Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2003 12:44 a.m. EST
Bagram GI: Troops Waited While Hillary Chowed Down

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton forced U.S. troops stationed at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to wait for their Thanksgiving dinner last Thursday while she and her entourage arrived late, then cut in line and were served first.

A soldier who witnessed the scene tells NewsMax:

"Thanksgiving Dinner started at 3 p.m. that day, so the line was forming around 2:30 p.m. She didn't show up until around 3:30 p.m.

"Once she got there," our source maintains, "Clinton and her entourage bumped everyone in line, forcing them to wait almost an extra hour."

The brass at Bagram apparently had a hard time rounding up New Yorkers who wanted to have dinner with Clinton, D-N.Y. Only six GIs responded to an e-mail sent out last week that stated, "Looking for military members from New York and Rhode Island interested in meeting their Senator/Congressman."

People magazine was on hand to cover the event and wanted to interview the troops for reaction to Clinton's visit.

"But they were getting declined left and right," our source said. "People were actually telling the reporters, 'You don't want to print what I think about her and her visit.'"

After Clinton and her entourage departed, the only topics GIs wanted to talk about were "how great the food was and how fantastic they thought George Bush's visit to Iraq was."

Editor's note:

[Sir Zach of R.]

Haha, so very true.

[SeanAshi]

Why did the people of New York elect a woman from Arkansas to the senate?

[NcDeuce]

Yeah, Arkansas...New York...what the fook?

[StarvingStudent47]

Yeah, Arkansas...New York...what the fook?

Well the current mayor of New York is from Boston. Medford, actually (a suburb of Boston where I lived for four years). If New Yorkers hated non-New-Yorkers that much, maybe they wouldn't keep ELECTING them. Nobody forced Hillary or Bloomberg on New York.

Incidentally, how do all you die-hard-GOPers feel about John Kerry, the current Democratic leader? I've already gotten a very thought-provoking response from Seiyuuki, but I'd be interested in what the rest of you had to say.

[budanski]

http://pspride.org/images/2002blame/Images/82LT3299.jpg
"Yeah, I'm dressed today like the whores we picked up in Vietnam when I fought in Vietnam. Did I ever tell you I was in Vietnam?"

"What You Don’t Know About John F'ing Kerry" (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml)

[stuntman]

one word, partisan

[martinexsquaddie]

just to stir the **** did'nt bush drop the shia's in the brown stuff when he encouraged them to revolt then dropped them in it
how many did saddam kill?

[stuntman]

just to stir the **** did'nt bush drop the shia's in the brown stuff when he encouraged them to revolt then dropped them in it
how many did saddam kill?
Well that was his dad. Plus everyone says we left the job undone. Can you fathom what would happen if we went into bagdad without UN supportback then , there would of been a **** storm with out some resolution formed!
I swear we are dam if we do dam if we don't!

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I thought they only bombed SAM sites or related infrastructure that were targeting allied jets enforcing the no fly zones, the bombing was in no way random or targeted at civilian infrastructure. Anyways this is another one of those GOP and Democrat custard fights we keep getting in this forum. :)

[Luxembourger]

Even if clinton had *** with LEwinsky he waged wars withouth having such a high toll of killed troops.
And saying that most of america don t like the democrats,, that s crap too.

Talk to some US soldiers who are in Iraq since march and ask them who they will vote for .

Ps : I was for the war and I am really happy that saddam was captured
but there was no plan for the aftermath of the war NO real PLAN , that s why we have now 500 good American soldiers dead !!! And Bush wasn t on
any funeral. And spending all the Defense buget money into the USAf and less in the US ARMY sucks too ...the troops on the ground need better equipment . IMPORVING THE SECURITY OF EVERY AMERICAN S soldier on the ground is more important than give all the money to the USAF

[garyfanclub]

Even if clinton had *** with LEwinsky he waged wars withouth having such a high toll of killed troops.
And saying that most of america don t like the democrats,, that s crap too.

Talk to some US soldiers who are in Iraq since march and ask them who they will vote for .

Ps : I was for the war and I am really happy that saddam was captured
but there was no plan for the aftermath of the war NO real PLAN , that s why we have now 500 good American soldiers dead !!! And Bush wasn t on
any funeral. And spending all the Defense buget money into the USAf and less in the US ARMY sucks too ...the troops on the ground need better equipment . IMPORVING THE SECURITY OF EVERY AMERICAN S soldier on the ground is more important than give all the money to the USAF

Got a source on that claim that there is less spending in the defense budget?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Even if clinton had *** with LEwinsky he waged wars withouth having such a high toll of killed troops.
And saying that most of america don t like the democrats,, that s crap too.

Talk to some US soldiers who are in Iraq since march and ask them who they will vote for .

Ps : I was for the war and I am really happy that saddam was captured
but there was no plan for the aftermath of the war NO real PLAN , that s why we have now 500 good American soldiers dead !!! And Bush wasn t on
any funeral. And spending all the Defense buget money into the USAf and less in the US ARMY sucks too ...the troops on the ground need better equipment . IMPORVING THE SECURITY OF EVERY AMERICAN S soldier on the ground is more important than give all the money to the USAF

You've painted an untrue and slanted picture of the American military.

500 dead troops for an operation the size of Iraq is amazing. Absolutely amazing. What is an acceptable number? Look at the Iran/Iraq war with hundreds of thousands killed for a comparison. To say that we have 500 dead because there was no plan makes no sense. The incredibly low number of both military and civilian dead is a testament to the planning and execution of the war. People (especially young people) have completely forgotten what war is like.

I work for the Army, am a vet, and have many friends still on active duty. They are all great sources of anti-Clinton and anti-Democrat email/jokes etc. Not a single one I know would even consider voting Democrat (though I'm sure there are some out there).

And what are you saying about American equipment? We have some of the best equipment and systems in the world. What better equipment would you have them get? Sure there may be temporary shortages due to logistics, but that's unavoidable. Many armies of the world don't even have enough uniforms for their troops. They go into battle wearing sandles, and street clothes.

[Merik]

Nice reply 2Sheds_Jackson. Tells the truth without bein offensive, unlike me.p-)

[Luxembourger]

And what are you saying about American equipment? We have some of the best equipment and systems in the world. What better equipment would you have them get?

I know that the American military is the best in the world what is in my eyes a good thing for world stability but I don t accept the fact that some units come with the old flak vests and other s have already the new interceptor vests...and there many things llike this ! I do understand that there might be shortages of shipping new equipment but look at the equipment of the national guard which is not a combat unit and still being sent to IRaq ( Because of shortages of real combat troops ,9 but at least give the national guard units better equipment BEFORE sending them to IRAq....To go to combat with Huey UH-1 in IRaq is like fighting Aliens with Sherman tanks .

And I think the fact that the Army does not get all the money that the USAF gets from the defense budget is a little bit unfair,,, favoring only one branch is bad .




500 dead troops for an operation the size of Iraq is amazing.


Absolutly true . compared to other armies , like the Russian who lost in GRozny in one single day 300 troops, it s a low kia number

but those 500 aren t only numbers but human being americans who had families -->
And most of the 500 causalties were killed not in an asssault or by chasing insurgents but they were killed by RSB or Chooper crashes, they died without even have seen the foe that did it.
One american soldier dead is already a tragedy .

Even if the invasion of Iraq was well organized and very fast there was still no real plan for the aftermath. And telling soldiers at the begining they will remain in iraq for 6 months and then tell them later they have to stay there 1 year ? Combat units are not peace keeping units although the US ARMY troops on the ground are doing an excellent job!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I know that the American military is the best in the world what is in my eyes a good thing for world stability but I don t accept the fact that some units come with the old flak vests and other s have already the new interceptor vests...and there many things llike this ! I do understand that there might be shortages of shipping new equipment but look at the equipment of the national guard which is not a combat unit and still being sent to IRaq ( Because of shortages of real combat troops ,9 but at least give the national guard units better equipment BEFORE sending them to IRAq....To go to combat with Huey UH-1 in IRaq is like fighting Aliens with Sherman tanks .

Nobody is flying combat missions in a UH-1. That being said, there's no way that any nation can afford to outfit every last troop with the latest and greatest. Obviously mission dictates who gets what. You're not going to equip an admin support person the same way you would a SEAL.


And I think the fact that the Army does not get all the money that the USAF gets from the defense budget is a little bit unfair,,, favoring only one branch is bad.

Every branch goes in and fights the budget battle, and nobody gets everything they asked for. Remember that there are those in the Congress/Senate who would make massive defense cuts & have us all sitting around with nothing to use against the enemy except harsh language. So it's a process. The USAF has some very expensive programs (just by virtue of the systems they use) - but the Army gets plenty of money too.


but those 500 aren t only numbers but human being americans who had families -->
And most of the 500 causalties were killed not in an asssault or by chasing insurgents but they were killed by RSB or Chooper crashes, they died without even have seen the foe that did it.
One american soldier dead is already a tragedy .

What difference does any of that make? Soldiers die in peacetime. Every death is tragic (well, ok most deaths are tragic) Take a look at how many combat aircraft crash in an average year, just by accident. How many ground troops are run over by tanks during training in the dark. These are grownups who know and accept the risks. So are you saying that even one death is an unacceptable loss?


Even if the invasion of Iraq was well organized and very fast there was still no real plan for the aftermath. And telling soldiers at the begining they will remain in iraq for 6 months and then tell them later they have to stay there 1 year ? Combat units are not peace keeping units although the US ARMY troops on the ground are doing an excellent job!

Hey, just because you're not aware of any plan doesn't mean there isn't one. And I assure you, there is one. But mission requirements change - I think the old war adage goes "the first thing that goes out the window is the plan". No matter what is planned for, things change. As JFK once said:

"Every area of trouble gives out a ray of hope; and the one unchangeable certainty is that nothing is certain or unchangeable. "

I do agree that that many of the units are ill-equipped to be peacekeepers. But I think the term "peacekeeper" is misused. The press likes to throw it around like the world is all neat and tidy. The fact is that there is not yet a "peace" to keep. Believe me, the operation is both fiscally and politically expensive and nobody wants them there any longer than needed.

I simply cannot find much fault with an operation that has gone so well. All you will see on the news is the "sexy" stuff that happens there with death & explosions. They won't waste the airtime on the other 99.9% of positive things that happen all day every day.