Nissan 350Z Forum, Nissan 370Z Tech Forums

Nissan 350Z Forum, Nissan 370Z Tech Forums (https://www.350z-tech.com/forums/)
-   Politics & Religion (https://www.350z-tech.com/forums/186-politics-religion/)
-   -   "I was against the war in Iraq, before I was for it...." (https://www.350z-tech.com/forums/186-politics-religion/60025-i-against-war-iraq-before-i.html)

buzzardmountain 11-28-2007 11:16 AM

Bill Clinton.....ROFLMAO

Quote:

Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start

By PATRICK HEALY

Published: November 28, 2007

During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003.

Before the invasion, Mr. Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before military action began, however, he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.

At the same time, he also spoke supportively about the 2002 Senate resolution that authorized military action against Iraq.

Advisers to Mr. Clinton said yesterday that he did oppose the war, but that it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose — in a direct, full-throated manner — the sitting president’s military decision.

Mr. Clinton has said several times since the war began that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush had done. As early as June 2004, he said, “I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job,” referring to the weapons inspections there before the war.

At the time of those remarks, though, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was not a presidential candidate, and Mr. Clinton was not campaigning on her behalf. Nor was she running for the nomination against a Democrat who opposed the invasion from the start — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are in a tight race to win the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, and Mr. Clinton made his remark in Iowa. One rival Democratic campaign circulated Mr. Clinton’s remark to reporters and, without speaking for attribution, accused him of fuzzing the historical record to make the Clintons appear more antiwar than they actually were at the time.

Mrs. Clinton voted in favor of a Senate resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in 2002. She has said she was misled by Mr. Bush.

Mr. Clinton’s remark yesterday came in the context of opposition to Republican-backed tax cuts for wealthy Americans like himself, and how that loss of revenue affected financing for the military.

“Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” Mr. Clinton said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

DogZilla 11-28-2007 12:49 PM

I'd like to post this officially, before my 2012 Candidacy.

I was for thongs, even before I was for thongs.

Thongs Bless America.



Oh yeah.....this Iraq thing has been bullshit since it was nothing but a rumor. Hey, at least there are still 14 South Dakota National Guardsman still hunting for Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

buzzardmountain 11-28-2007 01:01 PM

Quote:

I'd like to post this officially, before my 2012 Candidacy.

I was for thongs, even before I was for thongs.

Thongs Bless America.
Oh yeah.....this Iraq thing has been bullshit since it was nothing but a rumor. Hey, at least there are still 14 South Dakota National Guardsman still hunting for Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I heard it was 15.......

DogZilla 11-28-2007 01:10 PM

Quote:

I heard it was 15.......
15?!?!?!!?

Well that's practically an Invasion Force, as long as they bring Chuck Norris.

Also I'd like to flip flop on my previous statement. I was for Thongs long before I was against Granny Panties.

Of course this statement is sure to change when the Fall Fashions are introduced. What kind of Politician would I be if I didn't keep on top of these things?? Current Events and all that you know......

buzzardmountain 11-28-2007 02:08 PM

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3yvQ_c2-82w&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3yvQ_c2-82w&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[cerberus] 11-28-2007 08:00 PM

Man bill must never get laid by Hillery anymore.

etraxx 11-28-2007 08:14 PM

Quote:

]
Man bill must never get laid by Hillery anymore.
... of course .. there are always those rumors .. that Hillary is actually a man. This would make the phrase .. "get laid by Hillery" .... somewhat freightening ...

toykilla 11-29-2007 05:37 AM

Iraq was a mistake. A sign of intelligence is learning from your mistakes. Bush shows no such intelligence. There were alot of people for the war in the beginning that have now opened their eyes (me included).

/Still waiting for Bin Laden.
//Still waiting for WMDs
///Still waiting for a real "Mission Accomplished"

buzzardmountain 11-29-2007 10:35 AM

Quote:

/Still waiting for Bin Laden.
//Still waiting for WMDs
///Still waiting for a real "Mission Accomplished"
////^^^Still sounding like a broken record^^^
fixed

haha, j/k

:)

etraxx 11-29-2007 11:59 AM

Quote:

Iraq was a mistake. A sign of intelligence is learning from your mistakes. Bush shows no such intelligence. There were alot of people for the war in the beginning that have now opened their eyes (me included).

/Still waiting for Bin Laden.
//Still waiting for WMDs
///Still waiting for a real "Mission Accomplished"
1. Still waiting for Bin Laden:
I&#39;m curious exactly what you expect? Having spent 20 years in the US Army and having served in Vietnam, Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom I think I have a good idea of the mindset of the people who have been charged with finding him. If they could, they would. If given free rein, we could send troops into the area of Pakistan where he is assumed to be, but that would surely mean excessive casualties. When I say that, I am doing that from the point of view of civilians. The military would have a different view on the matter. What I don&#39;t understand is what you would have us do? Pakistan has not and most likely, will not allow us into that area. I do not expect us to force our way into this area.

So. What would you do? Do you really think that a Democratic politician vrs a Republican politician would somehow change the worldview of the people in this area of Pakistan from the 13th century to … heck … the 17th century? Personally, I don&#39;t think so .. and I doubt you do either.

So. Again, I am curious as to what you think could be done?

2. Still waiting for WMDs:
Me too. I understand that Saddam told a reporter that he pushed the idea that he had WMDs to keep Iran off his back. Makes sense .. but in the end it screwed him. Reports from many sources .. not just our intelligence services, but others too indicated that he did have WMDs. The left will tell you that this information was planted by the Bush regime. The right will tell you that this information was accepted by the Bush government and they reacted to it.

From what I can tell, he (Saddam) didn&#39;t have nuclear weapons .. or that close to having them. He DID have chemical weapons at one time. We know that he used them on the Kurds. The consensus of some seems to be that by the time we went into Iraq he didn&#39;t have them any more. The concern that he MIGHT have them was real. This isn&#39;t from me reading about this in a book. I was in Iraq during Desert Storm and I was in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Ubekistan during the current conflict. We were VERY concerned. There was a very real possibility of him using chemical weapons during the ~55 times we went into MOPP during in Kuwait in 2003 during Scud attacks (I think it was something like on 1 in 7 were actually launches. The rest were false alarms. From our point of view there wasn&#39;t any difference since you react to either the same way).

I personally think that Saddam probably DID have chemical weapons and that they ended up in Syria.

3. Still waiting for a real "Mission Accomplished":
Me too. The people who planned Operation Iraqi Freedom were expecting more of what they saw when we went into Bagdad at first. People celebrating, happy, laughing as they were liberated. I think that they assumed it would be something like the liberation of Europe during WWII. Wrong. These people have a totally different mindset with a heavy dose of resentment toward the West to start with.

When President Bush stated that "Mission Accomplished" I took that as the defeat of the Iraqi Army. I did not expect that that included defeat of an insurgency or the transfer of a society from the middle ages. That really requires what I have seen described as a &#39; Cultural Genocide&#39;. This has been done in the past. It was done during the Meiji Restoration with the elimination of the Samurai and again (Japan again) during the US occupation of Japan and the elimination of the military culture.

Me .. I will consider &#39;Mission Accomplished&#39; when we pull our forces out of Iraq .. and .. those left there string up terrorists (different from insurgents) from light poles.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.