Ralph Nader says impeachment (Boston Globe article)
- Thread starter Penguinfan
- Start date
God guys were all smart enough to know how corrupt our politicians and political parties have gotten. Nothing should surprise us. Hell there AL bought off by corporations. You think any of these corporations give chit about you. It's a dam shame and we as Americans don't raise enough hell about it. Bush had so many IOU's from last election he cant pay therm all back. I give those from inside his own party fighting him a thank you.
Cheney is at the heart of the problem. He is despicable and beneath contempt.
Notice that at least 2 of the last 3 Republican Presidents have NOT been what you would call intelligent men. I won't include George Sr in that group. Instead they have been portrayed as somehow "simple" folk. And it is these 2 that won reelection. Their fan clubs somehow take pride in their little cute "quirks" and that they are not "deep thinkers". WOW, is that comforting!?
Contrast that with the last 2 Dem Presidents. Both pretty damn smart guys.
The fact that people like W and RayGun can get elected is the result of corporate control of politics that now advertises Presidential candidates like they are a talk-show host or worse a cutesy game-show host.
Notice that at least 2 of the last 3 Republican Presidents have NOT been what you would call intelligent men. I won't include George Sr in that group. Instead they have been portrayed as somehow "simple" folk. And it is these 2 that won reelection. Their fan clubs somehow take pride in their little cute "quirks" and that they are not "deep thinkers". WOW, is that comforting!?
Contrast that with the last 2 Dem Presidents. Both pretty damn smart guys.
The fact that people like W and RayGun can get elected is the result of corporate control of politics that now advertises Presidential candidates like they are a talk-show host or worse a cutesy game-show host.
ocelot...you are one sad sot.....
your rage is ample proof as to which side of the fence the real mean spirited bunch resides...
imagine this....
president bush is introduced at a gathering in "anywhere,usa"...... it is the evening of June 9, 2005. ..."hail to the chief" plays...," hearty applause from a packed ballroom. ....bush walks to the podium and delivers the following address....
thank you, ladies and gentlemen.i....I want to speak this evening about how I see the political landscape...... let me jump right in...... the struggle between the republican party and the democratic party is a struggle between good and evil--and we're the good........i hate democrats.......let's face it, they have never made an honest living in their lives....who are they, really, but people who are intent on abusing power, destroying the united states senate and undermining our constitution?.....
they have no shame....
but why would they?....they have never been acquainted with the truth..they lie under oath.....they cheat on their wives......you ever been to a democratic fundraiser?...they all look the same..... they all behave the same......they have a dictatorship, and suffer from zeal so extreme they think they have a direct line to heaven. ......but what would you expect when you have a far left extremist base?....we cannot afford more of their leadership.....i call on you to help me defeat them!"
imagine bush saying those things.....mccain...or ken mehlman......
can you imagine it?...i can`t....because,they wouldn`t talk like that...
they would understand it would tend to add a new level of hysteria to political discourse, and that's not good for the country.......
it`s guys like you that ensure that guys like bush and cheyney get reelected....
because most people don`t particularly care for the ridiculous level of hysteria that spews from guys like yourself and dean....
you guys may share some dna somewhere down the line...
your rage is ample proof as to which side of the fence the real mean spirited bunch resides...
imagine this....
president bush is introduced at a gathering in "anywhere,usa"...... it is the evening of June 9, 2005. ..."hail to the chief" plays...," hearty applause from a packed ballroom. ....bush walks to the podium and delivers the following address....
thank you, ladies and gentlemen.i....I want to speak this evening about how I see the political landscape...... let me jump right in...... the struggle between the republican party and the democratic party is a struggle between good and evil--and we're the good........i hate democrats.......let's face it, they have never made an honest living in their lives....who are they, really, but people who are intent on abusing power, destroying the united states senate and undermining our constitution?.....
they have no shame....
but why would they?....they have never been acquainted with the truth..they lie under oath.....they cheat on their wives......you ever been to a democratic fundraiser?...they all look the same..... they all behave the same......they have a dictatorship, and suffer from zeal so extreme they think they have a direct line to heaven. ......but what would you expect when you have a far left extremist base?....we cannot afford more of their leadership.....i call on you to help me defeat them!"
imagine bush saying those things.....mccain...or ken mehlman......
can you imagine it?...i can`t....because,they wouldn`t talk like that...
they would understand it would tend to add a new level of hysteria to political discourse, and that's not good for the country.......
it`s guys like you that ensure that guys like bush and cheyney get reelected....
because most people don`t particularly care for the ridiculous level of hysteria that spews from guys like yourself and dean....
you guys may share some dna somewhere down the line...
I guess when France does it it offends you.
Dick Cheney would never, ever do business with terrorists ... right? Even
when it was illegal to do so in the United States? Just what is going on
here that we don't know about? Why isn't this on the evening news?
Here's a whopper of a story you may have missed amid the cacophony of
campaign ads and stump speeches in the run-up to the elections. During
former defense secretary Richard Cheney's five-year tenure as chief
executive of Halliburton, Inc., his oil services firm raked in big bucks
from dubious commercial dealings with Iraq. Cheney left Halliburton with a
$34 million retirement package last July when he became the GOP's
vice-presidential candidate.
Of course, U.S. firms aren't generally supposed to do business with Saddam
Hussein. But thanks to legal loopholes large enough to steer an oil tanker
through, Halliburton profited big-time from deals with the Iraqi
dictatorship. Conducted discreetly through several Halliburton subsidiaries
in Europe, these greasy transactions helped Saddam Hussein retain his grip
on power while lining the pockets of Cheney and company.
According to the Financial Times of London, between September 1988 and last
winter, Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, oversaw $23.8 million of business
contracts for the sale of oil-industry equipment and services to Iraq
through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump,
which helped rebuild Iraq's war-damaged petroleum-production infrastructure.
The combined value of these contracts exceeded those of any other U.S.
company doing business with Baghdad.
Halliburton was among more than a dozen American firms that supplied Iraq's
petroleum industry with spare parts and retooled its oil rigs when U.N.
sanctions were eased in 1998. Cheney's company utilized subsidiaries in
France, Italy, Germany, and Austria so as not to draw undue attention to
controversial business arrangements that might embarrass Washington and
jeopardize lucrative ties to Iraq, which will pump $24 billion of petrol
under the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program this year. Assisted by
Halliburton, Hussein's government will earn another $1 billion by illegally
exporting oil through black-market channels.
With Cheney at the helm since 1995, Halliburton quickly grew into America's
number-one oil-services company, the fifth-largest military contractor, and
the biggest nonunion employer in the nation. Although Cheney claimed that
the U.S. government "had absolutely nothing to do" with his firm's meteoric
financial success, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles
Times indicate that U.S. officials helped Halliburton secure major contracts
in Asia and Africa. Halliburton now does business in 130 countries and
employs more than 100,000 workers worldwide. Its 1999 income was a cool $15
billion.
In addition to Iraq, Halliburton counts among its business partners several
brutal dictatorships that have committed egregious human rights abuses,
including the hated military regime in Burma (Myanmar). EarthRights, a
Washington, D.C.-based human rights watchdog, condemned Halliburton for two
energy-pipeline projects in Burma that led to the forced relocation of
villages, rape, murder, indentured labor, and other crimes against humanity.
A full report (this is a 45 page pdf file - there is also a brief summary)
on the Burma connection, "Halliburton's Destructive Engagement," can be
accessed on EarthRights' Web site, http://www.earthrights.org.
Human rights activists have also criticized Cheney's company for its
questionable role in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, Rwanda,
Somalia, Indonesia, and other volatile trouble spots. In Russia,
Halliburton's partner, Tyumen Oil, has been accused of committing massive
fraud to gain control of a Siberian oil field. And in oil-rich Nigeria,
Halliburton worked with Shell and Chevron, which were implicated in gross
human rights violations and environmental calamities in that country.
Indeed, Cheney's firm increased its involvement in the Niger Delta after the
military government executed several ecology activists and crushed popular
protests against the oil industry.
Halliburton also had business dealings in Iran and Libya, which remain on
the State Department's list of terrorist states. Brown and Root, a
Halliburton subsidiary, was fined $3.8 million for reexporting U.S. goods to
Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions.
But in terms of sheer hypocrisy, Halliburton's relationship with Saddam
Hussein is hard to top. What's more, Cheney lied about his company's
activities in Iraq when journalists fleetingly raised the issue during the
campaign.
Questioned by Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week program in August, Cheney
bluntly asserted that Halliburton had no dealings with the Iraqi regime
while he was on board.
Donaldson: I'm told, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Halliburton, through
subsidiaries, was actually trying to do business in Iraq?
Cheney: No. No. I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq ?
even arrangements that were supposedly legal.
And that was it! ABC News and the other U.S. networks dropped the issue like
a hot potato. As damning information about Halliburton surfaced in the
European press, American reporters stuck to old routines and took their cues
on how to cover the campaign from the two main political parties, both of
which had very little to say about official U.S. support for abusive
corporate policies at home and abroad.
But why, in this instance, didn't the Democrats stomp and scream about
Cheney's Iraq connection? The Gore campaign undoubtedly knew of
Halliburton's smarmy business dealings from the get-go. Gore and Lieberman
could have made hay about how the wannabe GOP veep had been in cahoots with
Saddam. Such explosive revelations may well have swayed voters and boosted
Gore's chances in what was shaping up to be a close electoral contest.
The Democratic standard-bearers dropped the ball in part because
Halliburton's conduct was generally in accordance with the foreign policy of
the Clinton administration. Cheney is certainly not the only Washington
mover and shaker to have been affiliated with a company trading in Iraq.
Former CIA Director John Deutsch, who served in a Democratic administration,
is a member of the board of directors of Schlumberger, the second-largest
U.S. oil-services company, which also does business through subsidiaries in
Iraq. Despite occasional rhetorical skirmishes, a bipartisan foreign-policy
consensus prevails on Capital Hill, where the commitment to human rights,
with a few notable exceptions, is about as deep as an oil slick.
Truth be told, trading with the enemy is a time-honored American corporate
practice ? or perhaps "malpractice" would be a more appropriate description
of big-business ties to repressive regimes. Given that Saddam Hussein, the
pariah du jour, has often been compared to Hitler, it's worth pointing out
that several blue-chip U.S. firms profited from extensive commercial
dealings with Nazi Germany. Shockingly, some American companies ? including
Standard Oil, Ford, ITT, GM, and General Electric ? secretly kept trading
with the Nazi enemy while American soldiers fought and died during World War
II.
Today General Electric is among the companies that are back in business with
Saddam Hussein, even as American jets and battleships attack Iraq on a
weekly basis using weapons made by G.E. But the United Nations sanctions
committee, dominated by U.S. officials, has routinely blocked medicines and
other essential items from being delivered to Iraq through the oil-for-food
program, claiming they have a potential military "dual use." These sanctions
have taken a terrible toll on ordinary Iraqis, and on children in
particular, while the likes of Halliburton and G.E. continue to lubricate
their coffers.
Martin A. Lee is author of The Beast Reawakens, a book about resurgent
fascism.
Dick Cheney would never, ever do business with terrorists ... right? Even
when it was illegal to do so in the United States? Just what is going on
here that we don't know about? Why isn't this on the evening news?
Here's a whopper of a story you may have missed amid the cacophony of
campaign ads and stump speeches in the run-up to the elections. During
former defense secretary Richard Cheney's five-year tenure as chief
executive of Halliburton, Inc., his oil services firm raked in big bucks
from dubious commercial dealings with Iraq. Cheney left Halliburton with a
$34 million retirement package last July when he became the GOP's
vice-presidential candidate.
Of course, U.S. firms aren't generally supposed to do business with Saddam
Hussein. But thanks to legal loopholes large enough to steer an oil tanker
through, Halliburton profited big-time from deals with the Iraqi
dictatorship. Conducted discreetly through several Halliburton subsidiaries
in Europe, these greasy transactions helped Saddam Hussein retain his grip
on power while lining the pockets of Cheney and company.
According to the Financial Times of London, between September 1988 and last
winter, Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, oversaw $23.8 million of business
contracts for the sale of oil-industry equipment and services to Iraq
through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump,
which helped rebuild Iraq's war-damaged petroleum-production infrastructure.
The combined value of these contracts exceeded those of any other U.S.
company doing business with Baghdad.
Halliburton was among more than a dozen American firms that supplied Iraq's
petroleum industry with spare parts and retooled its oil rigs when U.N.
sanctions were eased in 1998. Cheney's company utilized subsidiaries in
France, Italy, Germany, and Austria so as not to draw undue attention to
controversial business arrangements that might embarrass Washington and
jeopardize lucrative ties to Iraq, which will pump $24 billion of petrol
under the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program this year. Assisted by
Halliburton, Hussein's government will earn another $1 billion by illegally
exporting oil through black-market channels.
With Cheney at the helm since 1995, Halliburton quickly grew into America's
number-one oil-services company, the fifth-largest military contractor, and
the biggest nonunion employer in the nation. Although Cheney claimed that
the U.S. government "had absolutely nothing to do" with his firm's meteoric
financial success, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles
Times indicate that U.S. officials helped Halliburton secure major contracts
in Asia and Africa. Halliburton now does business in 130 countries and
employs more than 100,000 workers worldwide. Its 1999 income was a cool $15
billion.
In addition to Iraq, Halliburton counts among its business partners several
brutal dictatorships that have committed egregious human rights abuses,
including the hated military regime in Burma (Myanmar). EarthRights, a
Washington, D.C.-based human rights watchdog, condemned Halliburton for two
energy-pipeline projects in Burma that led to the forced relocation of
villages, rape, murder, indentured labor, and other crimes against humanity.
A full report (this is a 45 page pdf file - there is also a brief summary)
on the Burma connection, "Halliburton's Destructive Engagement," can be
accessed on EarthRights' Web site, http://www.earthrights.org.
Human rights activists have also criticized Cheney's company for its
questionable role in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, Rwanda,
Somalia, Indonesia, and other volatile trouble spots. In Russia,
Halliburton's partner, Tyumen Oil, has been accused of committing massive
fraud to gain control of a Siberian oil field. And in oil-rich Nigeria,
Halliburton worked with Shell and Chevron, which were implicated in gross
human rights violations and environmental calamities in that country.
Indeed, Cheney's firm increased its involvement in the Niger Delta after the
military government executed several ecology activists and crushed popular
protests against the oil industry.
Halliburton also had business dealings in Iran and Libya, which remain on
the State Department's list of terrorist states. Brown and Root, a
Halliburton subsidiary, was fined $3.8 million for reexporting U.S. goods to
Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions.
But in terms of sheer hypocrisy, Halliburton's relationship with Saddam
Hussein is hard to top. What's more, Cheney lied about his company's
activities in Iraq when journalists fleetingly raised the issue during the
campaign.
Questioned by Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week program in August, Cheney
bluntly asserted that Halliburton had no dealings with the Iraqi regime
while he was on board.
Donaldson: I'm told, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Halliburton, through
subsidiaries, was actually trying to do business in Iraq?
Cheney: No. No. I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq ?
even arrangements that were supposedly legal.
And that was it! ABC News and the other U.S. networks dropped the issue like
a hot potato. As damning information about Halliburton surfaced in the
European press, American reporters stuck to old routines and took their cues
on how to cover the campaign from the two main political parties, both of
which had very little to say about official U.S. support for abusive
corporate policies at home and abroad.
But why, in this instance, didn't the Democrats stomp and scream about
Cheney's Iraq connection? The Gore campaign undoubtedly knew of
Halliburton's smarmy business dealings from the get-go. Gore and Lieberman
could have made hay about how the wannabe GOP veep had been in cahoots with
Saddam. Such explosive revelations may well have swayed voters and boosted
Gore's chances in what was shaping up to be a close electoral contest.
The Democratic standard-bearers dropped the ball in part because
Halliburton's conduct was generally in accordance with the foreign policy of
the Clinton administration. Cheney is certainly not the only Washington
mover and shaker to have been affiliated with a company trading in Iraq.
Former CIA Director John Deutsch, who served in a Democratic administration,
is a member of the board of directors of Schlumberger, the second-largest
U.S. oil-services company, which also does business through subsidiaries in
Iraq. Despite occasional rhetorical skirmishes, a bipartisan foreign-policy
consensus prevails on Capital Hill, where the commitment to human rights,
with a few notable exceptions, is about as deep as an oil slick.
Truth be told, trading with the enemy is a time-honored American corporate
practice ? or perhaps "malpractice" would be a more appropriate description
of big-business ties to repressive regimes. Given that Saddam Hussein, the
pariah du jour, has often been compared to Hitler, it's worth pointing out
that several blue-chip U.S. firms profited from extensive commercial
dealings with Nazi Germany. Shockingly, some American companies ? including
Standard Oil, Ford, ITT, GM, and General Electric ? secretly kept trading
with the Nazi enemy while American soldiers fought and died during World War
II.
Today General Electric is among the companies that are back in business with
Saddam Hussein, even as American jets and battleships attack Iraq on a
weekly basis using weapons made by G.E. But the United Nations sanctions
committee, dominated by U.S. officials, has routinely blocked medicines and
other essential items from being delivered to Iraq through the oil-for-food
program, claiming they have a potential military "dual use." These sanctions
have taken a terrible toll on ordinary Iraqis, and on children in
particular, while the likes of Halliburton and G.E. continue to lubricate
their coffers.
Martin A. Lee is author of The Beast Reawakens, a book about resurgent
fascism.
doesnt look like any crime was commited and all i see is a bunch of innuendo lol
but Cheney is a crook!
but Cheney is a crook!
if we`d given clinton 4 more years,things may have been exactly the same.....
Democrats for Regime Change
From the September 16, 2002 issue: The president has some surprising allies.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/16/2002,
""THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein
"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
These are the words of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at
the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill....
But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again.
OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. ..... Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones....... A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime."'
that`s why i try not to be hard on bill despite n. korea....he got it.........forget the blowjobs...that was b.s.......
anybody think clinton was lying when he made those statements?.....i certainly don`t.....
of course,bill didn`t know the extent to which the u.n. was running interference for saddam....
clinton saw that saddam was going to continue to be the lightning rod in the middle east that would have to be revisited time and again.....
and saddam was the guy that ,if he ever got that technology,was most likely to use it as a lever to gain more influence..more oil...more territory.........or on israel.....
Democrats for Regime Change
From the September 16, 2002 issue: The president has some surprising allies.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/16/2002,
""THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein
"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
These are the words of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at
the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill....
But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again.
OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. ..... Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones....... A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime."'
that`s why i try not to be hard on bill despite n. korea....he got it.........forget the blowjobs...that was b.s.......
anybody think clinton was lying when he made those statements?.....i certainly don`t.....
of course,bill didn`t know the extent to which the u.n. was running interference for saddam....
clinton saw that saddam was going to continue to be the lightning rod in the middle east that would have to be revisited time and again.....
and saddam was the guy that ,if he ever got that technology,was most likely to use it as a lever to gain more influence..more oil...more territory.........or on israel.....
Last edited:
gardenweasel said:
Clinton didn't take us to war. That's great, all we hear is how soft Clinton was, yet now we point to him as somebody who was ready to pounce on Iraq. And use that as some sort of justification?
Was Clinton lying about what.....his sexcapades? Yes. Bush wouldn't talk about his cocaine days because he didn't the children of the United States should hear that their President did such stuff. Too bad you are not willing to give Clinton the same break as his BJ would not have affected any lives if they did.
The fact is, and it is obvious from our attack on Iraq, that the sanctions were working. Dispite people like Cheney and the French, skirting around them and making Saddam stronger, the sanctions were working and I don't remember Clinton attacking. So what is your point GW?
The fact is, and it is obvious from our attack on Iraq, that the sanctions were working. Dispite people like Cheney and the French, skirting around them and making Saddam stronger, the sanctions were working and I don't remember Clinton attacking. So what is your point GW?
i never said clinton was "soft"....lol....
i`ve actually defended him on this board....he muffed n. korea big time....but,every president makes big mistakes....look at bush omn immigration...and stem cells...that`s my opinion...
read panel 51...was clinton lying about saddam?...
here it is...if you guys are to lazy to backtrack to read it.........................................
""THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein
"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
These are the words of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at
the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill....
But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again.
OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. ..... Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones....... A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime."' ...............................................
annan was making "last ditch attempts" at getting saddam to comply...in 1998!!!!
it`s conjecture to contemplate what bill would have done had he stayed in office....
but,it`s clear that unless he was blowing smoke,or a LIAR(which i don`t think he was on this issue) he was very serious about dealing with saddam.....
sounds alot like bush`s comments leading up to the war...
i`ve actually defended him on this board....he muffed n. korea big time....but,every president makes big mistakes....look at bush omn immigration...and stem cells...that`s my opinion...
read panel 51...was clinton lying about saddam?...
here it is...if you guys are to lazy to backtrack to read it.........................................
""THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein
"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
These are the words of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at
the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill....
But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again.
OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. ..... Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones....... A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime."' ...............................................
annan was making "last ditch attempts" at getting saddam to comply...in 1998!!!!
it`s conjecture to contemplate what bill would have done had he stayed in office....
but,it`s clear that unless he was blowing smoke,or a LIAR(which i don`t think he was on this issue) he was very serious about dealing with saddam.....
sounds alot like bush`s comments leading up to the war...
Maybe *you* never said Bill was soft, but that's the party line of most Republicans.
Surely you know the difference between a 'strike' and a full blown invasion?
Surely you know the difference between a 'strike' and a full blown invasion?
well...you read the comments...they weren`t exactly ambiguous...he considered saddam a major threat....and spoke of wmd`s more than a few times...
was he doctoring the intel?...or is that what everyone`s intel indicated?....i`d say the latter...
how would anyone know what saddam had....he did not allow full access...for much more than a decade...
what are intelligent men to think when a country acts in this manner?.....
and clinton is a very smart guy..
hillary voted to authorize force against saddam....
i don`t think it`s a stretch to say that clinton,if he had stayed in office,would have been forced to take serious measures against saddam...
given his "on the record" comments...
bush is a liar....clinton was what?....wrong?...misinformed?
were his comments not "well thought out?"
i wonder what bill would have done if he`d known what was going on at the u.n?...
was he doctoring the intel?...or is that what everyone`s intel indicated?....i`d say the latter...
how would anyone know what saddam had....he did not allow full access...for much more than a decade...
what are intelligent men to think when a country acts in this manner?.....
and clinton is a very smart guy..
hillary voted to authorize force against saddam....
i don`t think it`s a stretch to say that clinton,if he had stayed in office,would have been forced to take serious measures against saddam...
given his "on the record" comments...
bush is a liar....clinton was what?....wrong?...misinformed?
were his comments not "well thought out?"
i wonder what bill would have done if he`d known what was going on at the u.n?...
Last edited:
Of course there was bad intel, but obviously to Clinton, it didn't rise to the level of an invasion, and *that* was at a time when we weren't dealing with post 9/11.
I don't think anybody disagrees that Saddam, in general, was a menace and possibly a long-term threat. But wtf was so urgent, especially after 9/11?
Bush just decided after 9/11 that we must invade Iraq NOW?
Bush lied about giving diplomacy a chance, when all along he knew he was going to invade.
Bush lied about the Nigerian uranium fiasco. It's a lie when you know something is false, but try to present it as fact in order to scare everybody.
Rice and Cheney lied when they tried to tie Saddam to 9/11.
Bush lied as he to wrapped intelligence around policy, as high-level British politicians thought.
Bush lied when he said that Saddam had 'unmanned drones' that were a great threat to us.
Bush lied when he said that we invaded for humantarian reasons.
Those are but a few of the things that seperate Bush and Clinton on this issue.
Also, your article said that UN inspectors were kicked out for good in 1998.
Are these the same UN inspectors that we told to go home in 2003 so that they wouldn't get caught up in our shock and awe?
Are these the same UN inspectors that Bush & co. considered incompetent because they couldn't find these HUGE stockpiles of WMD?
I don't think anybody disagrees that Saddam, in general, was a menace and possibly a long-term threat. But wtf was so urgent, especially after 9/11?
Bush just decided after 9/11 that we must invade Iraq NOW?
Bush lied about giving diplomacy a chance, when all along he knew he was going to invade.
Bush lied about the Nigerian uranium fiasco. It's a lie when you know something is false, but try to present it as fact in order to scare everybody.
Rice and Cheney lied when they tried to tie Saddam to 9/11.
Bush lied as he to wrapped intelligence around policy, as high-level British politicians thought.
Bush lied when he said that Saddam had 'unmanned drones' that were a great threat to us.
Bush lied when he said that we invaded for humantarian reasons.
Those are but a few of the things that seperate Bush and Clinton on this issue.
Also, your article said that UN inspectors were kicked out for good in 1998.
Are these the same UN inspectors that we told to go home in 2003 so that they wouldn't get caught up in our shock and awe?
Are these the same UN inspectors that Bush & co. considered incompetent because they couldn't find these HUGE stockpiles of WMD?
