Undisputable Evidence

[bolverk]

On the other hand, these people signing off on this report are ignoring their very words and condemning Bush for their decisions. Typical democrat hypocrisy.

[mrroqout]

Jun 10, 2008 16:53:38 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Clinton did not take our country to war using a fear mongering, propaganda campaign.

Either did GWB he RESPONDED to the USA being attacked on American Soil. He RESPONDED to the 16 + UN Resolutions broken, he RESPONDED to the breaking of the cease fire, he RESPONDED to the breaking of no fly zone rules.

Billy on the other hand let us get attacked FOUR SEPERATE times..and RESPONDED by getting a hummer at his desk.

[jgaffney]

Jun 10, 2008 16:15:57 GMT -5 harpman1 said:

Hey, jgaffney; I wanna hear the joke!

The difference between involvement and commitment is illustrated by ham and eggs: the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

[bolverk]

You know, the Clinton administration was more of a threat to this country then any Terrorist group was, during his tenure. Ask Randy Weaver, who the government entrapped then killed his family members in an illegal raid.

Or, the Branch Davidians, who were accused of having weapons that never materialized. Clinton lied, people died.

Or, you can ask the relatives of Elian Gonzalez, who were treated like international criminals for attempting to carry out the last wishes of a Mother who died trying to bring her little boy to America. Yep, heavy handed is a mild statement about how that situation was handled. Like Billy Jeff was brown nosing a certain dictator to the south.

[mrroqout]

Well Bolverk if we're gonna go down this LOOOOOOOONG path.

Let's not forget Clintons Connections to real good guys like Suharto you know the person responsible for three genocides (Indonesia, East Timor, and West Papua). When Suharto visited Washington in 1995 a Clinton administration official was quoted in the New York Times as saying that Suharto was "our kind of guy." YEAH A MURDEROUS PSYCHO...
Clinton was none too concerned about this guys record, at least not concerned enough to call him what he was a "BAD GUY".




On June 26, 1993, Clinton bombed Baghdad in retaliation for an alleged but unproven Iraq plot to assassinate former President George Bush. Eight Iraqi civilians, including the distinguished Iraqi artist Layla al-Attar were killed in the raid, and 12 more were wounded. This kind of unilateral action in response to an unproven charge is a violation of international law. -- HE WOULDN'T WOULD HE?

The legal excuse given by U.S. officials, which they relied on in justification of the bombing of Libya in 1986, is the right to self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But that Article requires that the response be to an immediate threat to the retaliating party, clearly not the case, and therefore a legal fraud. AHH SNAP WAIT YOU MEAN CLINTON LIED AND PEOPLE DIED..No way.


1998 bombing of Afghanistan and the Sudan -Unknown numbers were killed in Afghanistan (and by the missiles that accidentally landed in Pakistan), and the pharmaceutical factory destroyed in the Sudan was the major source of medical drugs in that poor country. All evidence points to the fact that the Sudan factory destroyed had no connection whatever to chemical weapons or Bin Laden, and was bombed on the basis of insufficient and poorly evaluated data. ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME BAD AND POORLY EVALUATED DATA?? I THOUGHT ONLY GWB HAD THIS STUFF???



Clinton has given unstinting support to Turkey in its war against its indigenous Kurds. He has also escalated his aid to Colombia. In both of these countries the civilian casualties from counterinsurgency warfare and death squad operations during the Clinton years has exceeded the pre-NATO bombing deaths in Kosovo by a large factor. - NOTHING TO SEE HERE



Clinton's policy of sanctions on Iraq, supplemented by the maintenance of intense satellite surveillance and regular bombing attacks that have often resulted in civilian casualties. UNICEF reports that in 1999 more than 1 million Iraqi children under 5 were suffering from chronic malnutrition, and some 4,000-5,000 children are dying per month beyond normal death rates from the combination of malnutrition and disease. Death from disease was greatly increased by the shortage of potable water and medicines, that has led to a 20-fold increase in malaria (among other ailments). This vicious sanctions system, causing a creeping extermination of a people, has already caused more than a million excess deaths. HMMMMMMM..............


Let's not forget CLINTONS:
NATO-U. S. war against Yugoslavia was the gradual extension of targeting to civilian infrastructure and civilian facilities-therefore civilians who would be in houses, hospitals, schools, trains, factories, power stations, and broadcasting facilities. Two months after the war was over, the BBC "revealed" that the attack on Yugoslav television on April 23 was part of an escalation of NATO bombing whereby the target list was extended to non-military objectives; NATO was "taking off the gloves." According to Yugoslav authorities, 60 percent of NATO targets were civilian, including 33 hospitals and 344 schools, as well as 144 major industrial plants and a large petro-chemical plant whose bombing caused a pollution catastrophe. John Pilger noted that the list of civilian targets included "housing estates, hotels, libraries, youth centres, theatres, museums, churches and 14th century monasteries on the World Heritage list. Farms have been bombed and their crops set afire."
WAIT WEREN'T YOU WHINING ABOUT IRAQI ARTIFACTS LAST WEEK. I GUESS ONLY IRAQI ARTIFACTS MATTER TO LIBS?


This NATO targeting was in open violation of the laws of war, although this was certainly neither publicized nor condemned in the mainstream media..There can be little doubt that Yugoslavia finally agreed to a military exit from Kosovo mainly because they recognized that, although their forces had not been defeated on the battlefield, the NATO strategy of attacking civilian targets in violation of international law, was subject to no limits.



John and Karl Mueller contend that Clinton has killed more people that all the chemical and nuclear weapons throughout history..and have written extensively on this subject.


John Mueller is Professor of Political Science at the University of Rochester. Karl Mueller is Assistant Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the School of Advanced Airpower Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.


I am willing to bet Saunterelle comes back to say, this isn't about Clinton......

[subdjoe]

"the list of civilian targets included "housing estates, hotels, libraries, youth centres, theatres, museums, churches and 14th century monasteries on the World Heritage list."

Yep, not a word of outrage from the left at close to 200 churches, monasteries, and Christian shrines that were destroyed. And, I believe, one candle light procession on Great and Holy Pascha was bombed and strafed. But, since a Dem was sitting in the white house, it was OK. And who cares if a few christians get killed. Server 'em right.

But, oh, my! DON'T walk into a mosque with your boots on. THAT is sacralige.

[harpman1]

Thanks jgaffney- I love it!

[iraqvet2003]

Since Saunterelle posted the links to the report, I've been doing my best to sift through it (My internet connection in the Barracks is horrendous). But since Saunterelle called me out to comment, I will. Starting with this question: S, did you serve in the Armed Forces and if so, were you drafted (Vietnam, Korea) or volunteer? Further, what branch?

I do not ask to call into question your patriotism (I can tell by your posts that you do love this country, and military service is not the only qualifier for being patriotic), but to see if you've ever experienced what I describe as the Combat Mindset.

Combat Mindset: A peculiar way of thinking in a Warrior that, while you abhor war, because you have spent so much time training for combat you are excited to test yourself in that ultimate extreme environment.

Ok, now that I've laid down a parameter for my response to S regarding Harpman, I'll dive right in:

After we were attacked on Sept. 11th, we (all my buddies and I) were chomping at the bit to get deployed to Afghanistan. Unfortunately, we weren't. However, when the government (both the Administration and Bipartisan Supporters) started clamoring for Iraq, we were excited to get moving. During the run-up we were training so much that I, personally, didn't have time to get wrapped up in the WMD debate. On the eve of the invasion, my Commanding General (Gen. James Mattis) told us we were going into Iraq to liberate a people oppressed by a dictator that had no qualms about killing his own people or using WMD.

At no point did I question the rightness of that action, and I was vilified by the throngs of Iraqis that cheered us on as we rolled up the dusty highways of Iraq towards Bagdad.

As I've said before, the invasion was planned perfectly and proceeded way ahead of schedule. I do not think that the aftermath was planned as carefully and as a result Iraq fell into disarray. We have only recently begun to see real progress towards securing Iraq. However, every military person knows that Sustainment Ops are a long, drawn out process.


To address this Senate report, I feel that it is wrong for the Government to KNOWINGLY deceive the populace. If definitive evidence comes forth that our Government KNOWINGLY deceived us, I hope that those responsible are called out and appropriately punished. However, if statements and decisions are made because of bad intell (not fabricated, just bad) then there is no one to blame but the people that enabled the Intell Community to suffer and languish without sufficient funding.


This report, to me, is a waste of time and manpower. As it has been said, we are there (Iraq) now and we cannot turn back the clock to 2003. We need to do right by the Iraqi people and help them stabilize their country. To leave them now would fracture their society beyond repair. The Kurds in the North would be obliterated by the Turks. The Shia South and East, being heavily influenced by Iran, would exterminate the Sunni populations in those areas. The Sunni West would retaliate and the current "quagmire" in Iraq would pale in comparison to the bloody stalemate that would ensue.

And the world would blame the US for that, too.

[saunterelle]

Iraqvet, thank you for your honest response. Being 27, I have never been drafted, nor have I volunteered. My closest experience to war is from having a few friends who have done multiple tours in Iraq and another friend is now an Army Ranger who is currently stationed in Afghanistan.

I will agree with you that the invasion went well, ahead of schedule, and that the aftermath was clearly an afterthought. I can also see your point about why we should stay longer in Iraq and continue to help rebuild. However, I can see benefits to both sides of the equation and lean the other way, favoring withdrawal.

Regarding the Senate report, I do not think it is a waste of time and manpower. It has already proved that we had faulty intelligence and phase II set out to determine whether the Bush administration KNOWINGLY deceived the populace. The report has determined this to be the case and that is why I am so up in arms. It shows that the feelings I had, even before the war began, turned out to be true. It frustrates me that the other people posting here would rather turn a blind eye and focus on Clinton bashing, rather than recognize what the current administration has done.

There is a brief article from Time that illustrates both sides of the report here: www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1812507,00.html

[bolverk]

You know, so far I have found nothing in the report that says George W. Bush knowingly deceived anyone, but I am not finished reading the whole 171 pages yet either.

I will point out that you called this a bi-partisan report, which is a bit of a mis-characterization, since there were eight democrats and seven republicans. But, only two Republicans concurred with the report.

Yet, in the same vein, you will not admit that there was a bi-partisan approval to go to war in Iraq, and attempt to put all the blame on George W. Bush, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. To me, you are basically saying, the Democrats are too stupid to do any of their own investigation, and instead rely on the word of someone whom they both vilify and hate, calling him a liar at every turn. What does that say about your vaunted Democrats?

[bolverk]

And, saunterelle, let me ask you one question. At the age of 27, what have you ever done for this country? Besides pay taxes that is.

I, myself, volunteered for duty in the United States Army, entering four months before my 18th birthday, and serving three years and three months of duty for my fellow citizens. And, I did it because I love America.

Now, in my current job, I help people move from welfare to work. I help disabled people find work. And, I help people with Mental Illness find help.

So, I repeat, what have you done for your country?

[jgaffney]

Saunterelle sez...

Regarding the Senate report, I do not think it is a waste of time and manpower. It has already proved that we had faulty intelligence and phase II set out to determine whether the Bush administration KNOWINGLY deceived the populace. The report has determined this to be the case and that is why I am so up in arms. It shows that the feelings I had, even before the war began, turned out to be true. It frustrates me that the other people posting here would rather turn a blind eye and focus on Clinton bashing, rather than recognize what the current administration has done.

Well, Saunterelle, it's hard for the rest of us to believe that you do not have some emotional attachment to this issue. By the tenor of your earlier posts, you sound like one of the IMPEACH NOW crowd that was sorely treated after putting the Dems in power in Congress, when Pelosi and Reid both announced that impeachment was off the table. As a result, you are grasping at anything you can to discredit the Bush Administration, especially now when it looks like we will be successful in Iraq.

Yes, we spend a lot of time throwing Clinton's actions in your face because it points out the hypocricy of the Left: no similar hue and cry was raised when Yugoslavia was attacked, and no protests were raised when regime change in Iraq became America's stated policy in 1998. No marches ensued when the UN Security Council passed the several resolutions requiring Saddam to prove to us that he had dismantled his WMD programs, resolutions which threatened "dire consequences" if he failed to comply.

I believe I have posed this question to you before: Please give us your understanding of "dire consequences."

Bush did not lie because he repeated the same arguments that had been made during the Clinton administration. Where Bush differed was that, in the wake of 9/11, the terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocent Americans in one morning, Bush convinced us that Saddam was enough of a threat to do something about it. A majority of the Congress and a majority of the American people agreed.

Now that we're there, it does no good to try to re-think the beginning of the war. There are no do-overs in the real world. It is what it is, and we have to make the best of it.

But, please, I would like to hear your definition of the "dire consequences" that were threatened in the UN Security Council resolutions.