We're paying for Clinton's mismanagement

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.

You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

Rumsfeld came into the Defense Sec. position with the notion that wars are now fought with lighter and faster (and FEWER) troops. This may work for the invasion part but the actual occupation is proving that you need the heavy machinary and the troops on the ground. Ultimately, his doctrine has failed.
Dec 2003 Time magazine article. BIGGER ARMY," DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS TIME

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

So it is Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld didn't think more troops was necessary during and after ceasation of major combat operations in Iraq during the Summer of 2003?

All the But it's Clinton's fault people need to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. GWB has been president for 4 years. He has a Republican Congress who has passed everything he wanted and he has never vetoed a single bill.

Riprorin:
who got us into Iraq again?

Congress............

I see that a lot, but it is a false statement, because, the thing is, that the congress never said anything about warefare or invasion, neigher did the congress acknowlede the need for a full scale invasion and it did NOT give a blank check for it either.

It amazes me greatly, that i, a German know more about it than most Americans do.

You know the wording, you know the caveats, yet you still proclaim it to be supportive of a fill scale invasion of a country already contained?

At best that is utterly and entirely pathetic and you know better i am sure.

No you are an idiot. Only congress can autorize war, and they did.

You need to read the Congressional records again.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

If congress did not approve this, they could use the war powers act to bring the troops home as we are past 60 days on this operation.

Ah, there it is, now can you find the relevant sections for me that authorizes a full scale invasion of Iraq?

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriatein order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


I dont think that leaves any question. ANd if there is a question our war powers act could easily br brought into play. But once again, you have never let the facts get in your way.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.

You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

Rumsfeld came into the Defense Sec. position with the notion that wars are now fought with lighter and faster (and FEWER) troops. This may work for the invasion part but the actual occupation is proving that you need the heavy machinary and the troops on the ground. Ultimately, his doctrine has failed.
Dec 2003 Time magazine article. BIGGER ARMY," DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS TIME

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

So it is Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld didn't think more troops was necessary during and after ceasation of major combat operations in Iraq during the Summer of 2003?

All the But it's Clinton's fault people need to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. GWB has been president for 4 years. He has a Republican Congress who has passed everything he wanted and he has never vetoed a single bill.

Riprorin:
who got us into Iraq again?

Congress............

I see that a lot, but it is a false statement, because, the thing is, that the congress never said anything about warefare or invasion, neigher did the congress acknowlede the need for a full scale invasion and it did NOT give a blank check for it either.

It amazes me greatly, that i, a German know more about it than most Americans do.

You know the wording, you know the caveats, yet you still proclaim it to be supportive of a fill scale invasion of a country already contained?

At best that is utterly and entirely pathetic and you know better i am sure.

No you are an idiot. Only congress can autorize war, and they did.

You need to read the Congressional records again.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

If congress did not approve this, they could use the war powers act to bring the troops home as we are past 60 days on this operation.

Ah, there it is, now can you find the relevant sections for me that authorizes a full scale invasion of Iraq?

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriatein order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


I dont think that leaves any question. ANd if there is a question our war powers act could easily br brought into play. But once again, you have never let the facts get in your way.

So the US were defending their national security against Iraq? LOL, yeah, come on, you have to think for yourself, at leat a bit.

OR, did the US enforce a resolution that was never made?

There was no mandate for a full scale invasion of Iraq from neither the UN nor the congress and you KNOW that if you are not completly ignorant.

THAT is the fact you like to ignore, this Iraq war was illegal on ALL levels, internationally and nationally, it will be remembered as a mistake, just as it should.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

So the US were defending their national security against Iraq? LOL, yeah, come on, you have to think for yourself, at leat a bit.

1 .Considering that al queda camps were in iraq
2. consdiering Iraq has a long history of funding terrorist
3. Considering iraq still was not in compliance with 18 UN resolutions
4. Considering that before the war, every intel agency in the world thought iraq was developing WMD.

Thinking for myself, the right thing was done


OR, did the US enforce a resolution that was never made?


There was 18 of them? The gulf war ceasefire being one of them. This one alone gave the right to resume operations if iraq had not complied with the term of the agreement.




There was no mandate for a full scale invasion of Iraq from neither the UN nor the congress and you KNOW that if you are not completly ignorant.


Congress gave the approval to president. That is all that matters at this point.




THAT is the fact you like to ignore, this Iraq war was illegal on ALL levels, internationally and nationally, it will be remembered as a mistake, just as it should.

It definatly was not nationally. IF it was the war powers act would have been used by now, but it has not.
And internally we stand of good legal footing with the 18 broken UN resolutions, including the cease fire agreement.


Actually if things go well, this president will go down in history as the one freeing around 50 million from tyranny. I know you RBHs are going to hate that.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tylanner
Clinton was inept, and we, as a people paid for it.

Yeah with prosperity.

Red has a point, for those of us who are old enough to remember further back than four yeears this is obvious.

Clinton: The US economy was prospericng, people were happy and society was expanding, a bj he said never happened was his biggest mistake, really, who cares?

Bush: 9/11, i know you want to deny it but it happened on his watch, reacting to the situation in a good way by assembling the world to go to war with the Talibans who sheltered those responsible.Then all hell broke loose when he stomped his feet because the world didn't want to join him in a full scale invasion of Iraq, which was containe and was being inspected for weapons the US claimed they had. As the inspectors didn't find anything the US decided on a unilateral strategy, to attack and invade Iraq, now we know that it was all for nothing. There were no WMD's and no threat to anyone and the US will have to either act as rulers and enforce peace by the same measures that SH did (which is basically what is being done today) or leave it and let the shiites kill the others.
A record all time low in TRUE unemployment rates, a deficiet that is growing, a debt that is worse, a sinking dollar value and a record high of energy prices, while the rich get richer the poor get poorer, military spending goes up, social costs are way up but the spending id cut.

Clinton got a bj, Bush ruined the US and all foreign relations, who made the biggest mistake? You choose.

 

[polm]

Talk about getting over things. When will Republicans stop comparing or blaming every one of their own shortcomings with failures on Clinton's part ?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
A record all time low in TRUE unemployment rates,
I assume you mean under clintons term.
This was powered by a dot com bubble that eventually burst. I will not fault clinton or bush for the bubble popping.




a deficiet that is growing,


That happens in a recession. That number has already started to contract as the economy has improved.


a debt that is worse,


The debt is always getting worse. The US debt has not contracted in about 40 years.
Not a new problem.



a sinking dollar value


The dollar is about the same price as it was when the euro came out. NO one was complaining of a weak dollar then



and a record high of energy prices,


carter still owns that one.



while the rich get richer the poor get poorer,


For as long as this has been happning, there poor should have nothing by now. But the US still remains one of the richest countries in the world.




military spending goes up,


It has, but not drammatically.



social costs are way up but the spending id cut.



non military spending was about 2 trillion last year,. I dont recall anything being cut.

So many false/misleading statements in one sentence. I dont know how you do it.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Excuse me, but can the US enforce UN resolutions?

All statements stands or falls with the answer to that question and the answer is, of course, no, only the UN can.

Now that's a retreat if I've ever seen one.

Can the U.S. enforce U.N. resolutions? What a silly question. With extremely few exceptions in history, the U.N. has always relied on America to enforce its resolutions through force or sanctions. Pray tell, how does the U.N. enforce resolutions on its own?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: polm
Talk about getting over things. When will Republicans stop comparing or blaming every one of their own shortcomings with failures on Clinton's part ?

Maybe when the democrats get over trying to blame everything on republicans.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: polm
Talk about getting over things. When will Republicans stop comparing or blaming every one of their own shortcomings with failures on Clinton's part ?

Maybe when the democrats get over trying to blame everything on republicans.

oh got it, it's not about really blaming Clinton, it's about pointing the finger back at those you feel are blaming you.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Excuse me, but can the US enforce UN resolutions?

All statements stands or falls with the answer to that question and the answer is, of course, no, only the UN can.

Now that's a retreat if I've ever seen one.

Can the U.S. enforce U.N. resolutions? What a silly question. With extremely few exceptions in history, the U.N. has always relied on America to enforce its resolutions through force or sanctions. Pray tell, how does the U.N. enforce resolutions on its own?

They pass more resolutions

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: polm
Talk about getting over things. When will Republicans stop comparing or blaming every one of their own shortcomings with failures on Clinton's part ?

Maybe when the democrats get over trying to blame everything on republicans.

oh got it, it's not about really blaming Clinton, it's about pointing the finger back at those you feel are blaming you.

Just saying it works both ways.

 

[Tylanner]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tylanner
Clinton was inept, and we, as a people paid for it.

Yeah with prosperity.

Red has a point, for those of us who are old enough to remember further back than four yeears this is obvious.

Clinton: The US economy was prospericng, people were happy and society was expanding, a bj he said never happened was his biggest mistake, really, who cares?

Bush: 9/11, i know you want to deny it but it happened on his watch, reacting to the situation in a good way by assembling the world to go to war with the Talibans who sheltered those responsible.Then all hell broke loose when he stomped his feet because the world didn't want to join him in a full scale invasion of Iraq, which was containe and was being inspected for weapons the US claimed they had. As the inspectors didn't find anything the US decided on a unilateral strategy, to attack and invade Iraq, now we know that it was all for nothing. There were no WMD's and no threat to anyone and the US will have to either act as rulers and enforce peace by the same measures that SH did (which is basically what is being done today) or leave it and let the shiites kill the others.
A record all time low in TRUE unemployment rates, a deficiet that is growing, a debt that is worse, a sinking dollar value and a record high of energy prices, while the rich get richer the poor get poorer, military spending goes up, social costs are way up but the spending id cut.

Clinton got a bj, Bush ruined the US and all foreign relations, who made the biggest mistake? You choose.

Do you work for the BBC? CBS? ABC?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: IronMentality

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
God I can't wait to leave this country.

Please leave and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

Right after I get my doctorate.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it. UN resolution 660 calls for the withdrawal of of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, resolution 678 calls on member nations to use force to accomplish that end.

Those ends were accomplished in 1991...

There were no Iraqi troops in Kuwait in 2003...

As for Blix's statements to the UN shortly before the invasion, March 7, 2003, they speak for themselves-

"...at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."

"No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

"How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months."

The Bush admin had no intention whatsoever of allowing these inspections to continue. As history has shown, the Iraqis were telling the truth about their non-existant weapons programs. By now, UN sanctions would have been lifted, Iraq would have been contributing significantly to the world oil supply, and the US wouldn't be pounding $6B/mo down a rathole of occupation...

Clinton's mismanagement? far, far from it. That particular conclusion can only be drawn from the false premise that the Iraqi invasion was not merely justifiable, but necessary. Given that not a single one of the Admin's prewar justifications has proven to be true, the whole concept of mismanagement belongs elsewhere...

 

[Orsorum]

Riprorin, do you tie your self-worth to your hatred of Clinton?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gotta love it. UN resolution 660 calls for the withdrawal of of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, resolution 678 calls on member nations to use force to accomplish that end.

Those ends were accomplished in 1991...

There were no Iraqi troops in Kuwait in 2003...

What an interesting interpretation of the plainly stated history of events. Whereas a U.N. resolution in 1998 stresses...

...That the necessary conditions do not exist for the modification of the measures referred to in section F of resolution 687 (1991).

...you've declared that it was 'mission accomplished' back in 1991. One has to wonder what the U.N. inspectors were trying to enforce in 2002 as well.

As for Blix's statements to the UN shortly before the invasion, March 7, 2003, they speak for themselves-

"...at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."

"No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

"How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months."

Whatever happened to your statement, "The Iraqis apparently had no wmd's, and were in compliance with the inspection requirements a few weeks prior to the invasion, per Blix's March 7 2003 report to the UN"?

Where in either of those three quotes does Dr. Blix state that after 12+ years, Mr. Hussein's regime was suddenly in full compliance of the terms of their 1991 surrender? Where does he account for the 6,500+ chemical bombs or 8,500+ litres of anthrax mysteriously left out of Iraqi documentation and still not spoken for?

I blame Mr. Clinton for nothing other than perhaps my vague perception that he did not take national security matters as seriously as he could have. Then again, full-time intelligence officers failed in providing proper intelligence on Iraq (or on 9/11, an entirely separate event) - and the actions a president takes can only be as well-suited as the information that reaches him.

 

[Jhhnn]

Happen to read section F, resolution 687, yllus? If you had, you wouldn't quote it here, because it deals only with sanctions, not invasion. It does not authorize any such action.

As I pointed out early, Blix's statements stand on their own, only the deliberately obtuse would deny what Blix stated rather clearly- outside pressure, the threat of invasion, was working, and that he and his team would finish their work in a matter of months if Iraqi cooperation remained at the then present level. That's not to say they had been compliant in the distant past, or that anybody would have believed their claims, even with full documentation and espionage agents posing as inspectors crawling all over their country...

The Bush team realized full well that it was impossible for the Iraqis to prove a negative. Can't prove that sasquatch doesn't roam the pacific northwest, or that aliens didn't land in New Mexico circa 1948, either, but some attempt to represent such as fact, which is exactly what the Bush team did wrt Iraq and their alleged CBW agents, nuclear program, and "links" to al qaeda....

Only the invasion proved the Bush claims to be false, being the only thing that really could... Even now, Bush supporters still attempt to rationalize it all, find a way to believe the unbelievable, sanction the unconscionable. When the house of cards falls down, they still call it a house.

Attempts to lay the whole thing off on the intelligence community are also less than truthful. WRT the invasion of Iraq, Bush told his advisors early on- "Find me a way." (/11 was the underlying pretext, and carefully selected and deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented intelligence provided the rationale, such as it was. The Bush camp exploited a national tragedy and fanned the flames of hysteria in a deliberate effort to achieve ends unrelated to the events of that tragic day...

Bill Clinton didn't do that, an without that, our troops wouldn't be in Iraq, so we wouldn't need nearly so many...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Happen to read section F, resolution 687, yllus? If you had, you wouldn't quote it here, because it deals only with sanctions, not invasion. It does not authorize any such action.

As I pointed out early, Blix's statements stand on their own, only the deliberately obtuse would deny what Blix stated rather clearly- outside pressure, the threat of invasion, was working, and that he and his team would finish their work in a matter of months if Iraqi cooperation remained at the then present level. That's not to say they had been compliant in the distant past, or that anybody would have believed their claims, even with full documentation and espionage agents posing as inspectors crawling all over their country...

The Bush team realized full well that it was impossible for the Iraqis to prove a negative. Can't prove that sasquatch doesn't roam the pacific northwest, or that aliens didn't land in New Mexico circa 1948, either, but some attempt to represent such as fact, which is exactly what the Bush team did wrt Iraq and their alleged CBW agents, nuclear program, and "links" to al qaeda....

Only the invasion proved the Bush claims to be false, being the only thing that really could... Even now, Bush supporters still attempt to rationalize it all, find a way to believe the unbelievable, sanction the unconscionable. When the house of cards falls down, they still call it a house.

Attempts to lay the whole thing off on the intelligence community are also less than truthful. WRT the invasion of Iraq, Bush told his advisors early on- "Find me a way." (/11 was the underlying pretext, and carefully selected and deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented intelligence provided the rationale, such as it was. The Bush camp exploited a national tragedy and fanned the flames of hysteria in a deliberate effort to achieve ends unrelated to the events of that tragic day...

Bill Clinton didn't do that, an without that, our troops wouldn't be in Iraq, so we wouldn't need nearly so many...

Just name one world intelligence agency that thought Iraq did not have current stock pile of WMD or was currently developing wmd before the war started. Just one is all I ask.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Thought"? Charrison? They didn't think, they suspected, and may well have extrapolated that into belief. That's not rational "thought", per se... Many believed the FUD and innuendo spread by Iraqi exile groups, whose motives were, or should have been, utterly transparent... the CIA certainly didn't regard Chalabi's group as credible, but Feith's OSP puffed 'em up like they were the second coming of Christ and his apostles, too... Chalabi even chummed up to the First Lady...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Thought"? Charrison? They didn't think, they suspected, and may well have extrapolated that into belief. That's not rational "thought", per se... Many believed the FUD and innuendo spread by Iraqi exile groups, whose motives were, or should have been, utterly transparent... the CIA certainly didn't regard Chalabi's group as credible, but Feith's OSP puffed 'em up like they were the second coming of Christ and his apostles, too... Chalabi even chummed up to the First Lady...

So which intel agency did not think or suspect that iraq was not developing or continuing to stockpile WMD. IT is a simple question.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Happen to read section F, resolution 687, yllus? If you had, you wouldn't quote it here, because it deals only with sanctions, not invasion. It does not authorize any such action.

Haha. Unlike some, I get my facts straight and read the documents fully before taking a position. I read it the resolution and I'm more than happy to clarify its importance for everyone. We start with Section C, in which U.N. Resolution 687:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution;

20. Decides, effective immediately, that the prohibitions against the sale or supply to Iraq of commodities or products, other than medicine and health supplies, and prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall not apply to foodstuffs notified to the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait or, with the approval of that Committee, under the simplified and accelerated "no-objection" procedure, to materials and supplies for essential civilian needs as identified in the report of the Secretary-General dated 20 March 1991, and in any further findings of humanitarian need by the Committee;

22. Decides that upon the approval by the Security Council of the programme called for in paragraph 19 above and upon Council agreement that Iraq has completed all actions contemplated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 above, the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall have no further force or effect;

In short, sanctions are to be applied to Iraq has eliminated its weapons under international supervision. Now, the U.N. and President Clinton didn't seem to think this was quite done in 1998! So again, what ends were accomplished in 1991?

The Bush team realized full well that it was impossible for the Iraqis to prove a negative.

I love when people bring up this supposedly safe fallback position. Are you saying it was impossible to allow international supervision of the 6,500+ missing chemical bombs or 8,500+ litres of missing anthrax? Are you saying that such huge quantities can be destroyed and the documentation of such can simply be overlooked? We're not talking about throwing this stuff in the refuse bin. There are serious logistics at play here, with equipment to reserve use of and labour to pay. But nooo...it's impossible for the Iraqis to come up with any of this. Hysterical.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Thought"? Charrison? They didn't think, they suspected, and may well have extrapolated that into belief. That's not rational "thought", per se... Many believed the FUD and innuendo spread by Iraqi exile groups, whose motives were, or should have been, utterly transparent... the CIA certainly didn't regard Chalabi's group as credible, but Feith's OSP puffed 'em up like they were the second coming of Christ and his apostles, too... Chalabi even chummed up to the First Lady...

So which intel agency did not think or suspect that iraq was not developing or continuing to stockpile WMD. IT is a simple question.

Intelligence agencies in the US and around the world were being fed BS by Chalabi and his ilk about Iraq WMD and the reaction of the Iraqi people to an invasion.

They lied on both accounts. No WMD. No flowers.

Intelligence agencies around the world all believed Saddam continued to produce WMD because they were looking at intel provided by U.S. CIA assets who had ulterior motives. Why don't you tell us why the invasion of Iraq was necessary on March 19, 2003? What was the reason we had to go in then? The inspections were ongoing and they found nothing. Just as the U.S. Iraq Survey Group found nothing.

Wake up. You've been had. There was no threat. No WMD. It's all lies and the only people who don't know they were lied to are those too stupid to admit it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, well, charrison, "When did you quit beating your wife?" is also a simple question, and very much in the same vein as your own... Suspicion is not proof, and to represent it as such is a deliberate distortion.

And yllus, while Clinton may not have believed that Iraq's CBW arsenal had been destroyed as of 1998, he didn't invade, either. No UN resolution has ever called for that, except to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 1991. As to the lack of documentation concerning the destruction of the Iraqi arsenal, you're apparently claiming that invasion was justified simply because they couldn't keep the paperwork straight through a series of air attacks on their military infrastructure in the years between 1991 and 1998, right? Or that the fact that since these weapons were never accounted for, not even by the invasion, that they must still exist, somewhere, or what?

Other than that, I'll just go with what BBond had to say, and leave it at that. There is no known cure for willful blindness.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Thought"? Charrison? They didn't think, they suspected, and may well have extrapolated that into belief. That's not rational "thought", per se... Many believed the FUD and innuendo spread by Iraqi exile groups, whose motives were, or should have been, utterly transparent... the CIA certainly didn't regard Chalabi's group as credible, but Feith's OSP puffed 'em up like they were the second coming of Christ and his apostles, too... Chalabi even chummed up to the First Lady...

So which intel agency did not think or suspect that iraq was not developing or continuing to stockpile WMD. IT is a simple question.

It doesn't matter - they were all using the same flawed source material, so no matter how many agencies there were, there was really only one 'independent' opinion, not one for each agency.

 

[IronMentality]

Originally posted by: outriding
This has to be the DUMBEST thread ever.

U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender

Maybe if Europe filled its obligation of actually putting troops across the world and even within there own country as part of NATO, we wouldn't have to spend so much in Cold War areas such as Germany and Italy.