quote:Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.
"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"
Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Incontestable. You folks know what that means?
It means if you want to hold true to your assertions that Bush lied about this stuff, then you must now declare Clinton a liar as well.
That's gonna hurt.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:It means if you want to hold true to your assertions that Bush lied about this stuff, then you must now declare Clinton a liar as well.
It doesn't hurt as much as seeing Republicans turn to the man they'd most like to flay to justify the war in Iraq. I mean, if you (and I believe you do) really believe the "you can't call Bush a liar without calling Clinton a liar" line ( ) then the reverse holds true: you can't call Clinton a liar without calling Bush a liar.
Oh, wait, you've called Clinton everything under the book, haven't you? I guess, since you're in love with "Guilt by Association" that you believe George W. Bush to be a druggie, alcoholic, draft-dodging adulterer.
But I forget, Bush qualifies for most of that without being associated with Clinton
quote:"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."
And you wanna know something, Rob? If a Democrat was in office right now, you'd be screaming for his head, wailing about soldiers being dragged through the streets in Somalia, and aspirin factories in Sudan, and you'd be screaming and ranting and raving because when it comes down to it, Republicans are evil greedy fucks who prosecute their political enemies for adultery and expect to get off easy when all they do is bomb and invade countries.
posted
the reverse holds true: you can't call Clinton a liar without calling Bush a liar.
I think you two are talking about two different kinds of calling someone a liar. You can't say that Bush lied about this one thing without saying that Clinton lied about that same thing. However, we can still say Clinton was a liar because he lied about many many many OTHER things. Which is, of course, irrelevant semantics.
when it comes down to it, Republicans are evil greedy fucks who prosecute their political enemies for adultery and expect to get off easy when all they do is bomb and invade countries.
Quickest. Thread. Death. Ever.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Republicans were all hot and heavy to impeach Clinton for lying about his sexual activity, but mention impeaching Bush for lying about evidence which resulted in an invasion, and suddenly it's all "Oh, but look, Bill is our friend."
posted
As merely a former president (and therefore no longer Commander in Chief) M. Clinton probably lacked the resources available to M. Bush II to thorough fact-check these intelligence details.
If you want to excuse presidential lying then it's a question of degree, really. Clinton lied about getting his dick sucked by someone who was not his wife. This is a bad thing and by no means should it be construed that we were all, like, "Yeah, GO BILL! Fuck that intern who isn't your wife!!!" At the same time the only little soldiers dying as a result of Clinton's lie were the little swimmers the former president dribbled down the front of Monica's dress. To the best of my knowledge no ones sons are presently getting shot to death in a desert hellhole as a result of these lies of M. Clinton.
Which is to say that it doesn't hurt, Rob. What hurts is the hypocrisy with which you are willingness to dismiss the lies of one president which have directly resulted in war (WAR!) and the continuing shedding of American blood on foreign soil, whereas the lies of the other (regarding a personal affaire and on a smaller scale) had you brandishing torches and demanding impeachment. Irregardless of motive, the consequences of each are entirely out of proportion. Would saying 'Apples and Oranges' get us anywhere?
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I stole this from another site but it sums it up
quote:I can hear the NeoCons cognitive dissonance from here. Everything a Clinton says must be a lie. Its supports the president, so it must be true. But everything a Clinton says must be a lie. *repeat till smoke shoots out ears*
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Limbaugh was talking about this today. Instead of calling it support, he was spinning it, saying that Clinton was covering his own ass. One of his callers wanted to know where BC's administration got the intelligence. I wouldn't mind hearing that one myself.
-------------------- Sparky:: Think! Question Authority, Authoritatively. “Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” EMSparks
Shalamar: To save face, keep lower half shut.
Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Republicans were all hot and heavy to impeach Clinton for lying about his sexual activity, but mention impeaching Bush for lying about evidence which resulted in an invasion
Clinton was impeached for perjury, not just plain old lying. Even if Bush DID lie to start this war (of which you still have no evidence), I'm pretty sure that's not an actual crime, because he wasn't under oath at the time. I'd probably call for his head ANYWAY, mind you, but you couldn't impeach him for it.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
The "chemical weapons factory" in the Sudan, for another (thank you for bringing that up, Jeffy. I love it when you prove my points.)
quote:The Sudanese government called loudly for an international inspection, which the Clinton administration -- once so confident -- declined to endorse. By the first week in September, Defense Secretary William Cohen admitted that he "should have known" that Al-Shifa made medical and agricultural products.
I'm sure that the 3500 civilians who got blown up by our bombs in Kosovo would differ with your assessment that it was about 'nothing,' Balaam.
It's only a matter of scale and results. Clintons actions in Kosovo had some results (although our trops were supposed to be out of there in a year, remember?). His cruise missile launches didn't (besides pissing off Sudan and maybe giving some encouragement to Osama's boys, and possibly convincing Hussein to hide his stuff better).
On the other hand, Bush has destroyed two repressive regimes and improved conditions in both those countries. In Iraq's case, even better than prewar levels in many areas.
If Clinton is backing Bush, it's most likely because he acted (sort of) on the same intelligence, and he knows that such namecalling will inevitably rub off on him, and his "legacy" is in bad enough shape as it is.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So, let me get this straight. Clinton's authorization of military intervention in the former Yugoslavia was wrong because it was based on possibly faulty intelligence and because it tied up manpower? But Bush's authorization of military intervention in the former Iraq was right because, despite being based on possibly faulty intelligence and tying up military manpower in peacekeeping duties far more extensive than anything the U.S. has engaged in since the aftermath of WWII...well, because why, exactly?
If you've got a case for the rightness of Gulf War II (or for that matter if you've got a case against it), then make it and let it stand on its own merits. The sheer degree of the hypocrisy on display here makes me feel like my mind needs a shower. There have been claims made in the Flameboard over the past several days that I honestly cannot imagine anyone being able to say with a straight face, and yet here we are.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: So, let me get this straight. Clinton's authorization of military intervention in the former Yugoslavia was wrong because it was based on possibly faulty intelligence and because it tied up manpower? But Bush's authorization of military intervention in the former Iraq was right because, despite being based on possibly faulty intelligence and tying up military manpower in peacekeeping duties far more extensive than anything the U.S. has engaged in since the aftermath of WWII...well, because why, exactly?
If you've got a case for the rightness of Gulf War II (or for that matter if you've got a case against it), then make it and let it stand on its own merits. The sheer degree of the hypocrisy on display here makes me feel like my mind needs a shower. There have been claims made in the Flameboard over the past several days that I honestly cannot imagine anyone being able to say with a straight face, and yet here we are.
No. Clinton acted correctly in intervening in Kosovo, AND Bush acted correctly in removing Hussein from power. That their analyses both contained a bit of inaccurate data is inconsequential compared to the destruction that was averted because of these actions.
They hypocracy lies in the differentiation between the two actions, which is in reality based solely upon the political affiliations of the presidents involved.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What? Didn't you know? You don't live in a democracy anymore, you live in a hypocracy. 8)
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: No. Clinton acted correctly in intervening in Kosovo, AND Bush acted correctly in removing Hussein from power. That their analyses both contained a bit of inaccurate data is inconsequential compared to the destruction that was averted because of these actions.
They hypocracy lies in the differentiation between the two actions, which is in reality based solely upon the political affiliations of the presidents involved.
OK. So, if we say that Clinton was a very naughty boy, and condemn him to a life of being a househusband while his wife has her crack at the wheel, then fine. But. . . if he's a very naughty boy, then that means Bush likewise is also a very naughty boy. Clinton got away with it however, something which never fails to work you Republicans into a fury: but that doesn't mean anyone else should get away with it, surely?
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) then the reverse holds true: you can't call Clinton a liar without calling Bush a liar. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
