Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Bill Clinton is a great ambassador for U.S.
Saturday, Nov. 22, 2008 | 2:04 a.m.
There is only one American who is welcome, respected and loved around the world because of all the good work (starting in his presidency) that he has done. That person is former President Bill Clinton. He knows most of the world leaders and has a working relationship with many of them, which has benefitted them and their people. The United States can no longer win wars militarily because we are not fighting countries, we are fighting movements such as al-Qaida, the Taliban and Islamic radicalism in overpopulated and poverty stricken areas of the world.
President-elect Barack Obama, Vice President-elect Joe Biden and possibly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be very fortunate to be able to call upon Bill Clinton’s good will, patience and negotiating skills to help resolve some of the world’s major conflicts. Ask Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the president of Indonesia, President Alvaro Uribe of Columbia, President Shimon Peres of Israel, Nelson Mandela, the world leaders who attend the Clinton Global Initiative (I was a volunteer at the first two conferences), Mrs. Boris Yeltsin, and the leaders of Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Kosovo. All of them will tell you that Bill Clinton is a good man who respects them and cares about their people.
So what are we debating here? We’re nitpicking about a presidential library center — where future leaders are being trained and current leaders can come to learn — and about the Clinton Foundation, which is teaching American and international university students, big- and small-business leaders, movie stars, philanthropists and world leaders how to help one another so that it will become the natural order of things to do, making the Clinton Global Initiative no longer needed or relevant.
Let’s get Bill Clinton back to what he does best, helping people, while promoting clean energy and restoring the good name and reputation of the United States of America. We need to get Bill Clinton out there immediately to once again right the world that the Bush-Cheney administration turned on its ear.
Discussion: 60 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- ‘Stripper-mobile’ with live dancers raises safety, decency concerns
- Manny Pacquiao, Miguel Cotto arrive at MGM Grand
- Report: State’s economy worse off than any other
- Harrah’s launches program to focus on small group travel
- Rebels survive scare from Division-II Washburn
- Encore, M Resort added to Forbes Travel list
- Strip gaming win sees smallest decline since June 2008
- Las Vegas sees first monthly visitor increase since May 2008
- Dispute over casino baccarat systems prompts lawsuit
- Study cites challenges of Nevada’s financial problems
Blogs
TUF Heavyweights
Episode 9: Funky chickens
Shark Bytes
Players on championship team always worked hard (5 Comments)
Sports: Upon Further Review
Fight snapshot: Predictions for Pacquiao-Cotto (1 Comment)
The Kats Report
A lesson in information dissemination, with a little Twitter and a lot of Agassi
Now and Then
Ichabods were tougher than they sound (2 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
I shudder to think what the “amazing door prize from the governor” might be (7 Comments)
Pew Center report finds what others have: Nevada's economy depressed, future in doubt (8 Comments)
Calendar »
- 12 Thu
- 13 Fri
- 14 Sat
- 15 Sun
- 16 Mon
-
Las Vegas Wranglers vs. Utah Grizzlies
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
Lily Tomlin at the Hollywood Theatre
Hollywood Theatre at MGM Grand
-
Leonard Cohen at The Colosseum
The Colosseum | 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Football specials at Diablo's
Diablos Cantina
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Bill Clinton did an excellent job in foreign policy arena.
1. He did not leave the Middle East in a total mess and his policy did not trigger an all out Palestine war against Israel.
2. The world loved him so much that he did not allow a terrorist army to build up in Afghanistan.
3. The world loved Clinton so much that the world trade center was never attacked.
4. The world loved Clinton so much that a US war ship was never attacked.
5. The world loved Clinton so much that terrorists never sneaked into this country and take flight lessons.
6. The world loved Clinton so much that not one of our embassy buildings was ever attacked.
7. The world loved Clinton so much that Russia decided to sell nuclear technology to Iran.
Two thumbs up for Clinton.
The world loves us so much back then.......will at least Monica loved Bill.
If I were to make a list like that for Bush, you would need several monitors to view it, and there would be no need to use hogwash inferences and/or misdirected responsibility either.
Where is Bush now? 18% approval?
By the way, where the hell is Bush? Did he leave early too? What a slacker that guy is! A post-turtle!
The article is about Clinton and how "great" he was in foreign affairs. The only affairs that Clinton cared about dealt with women who were not his wife.
I do not think Bush is going to be in the Obama adminstration but feel free to talk about him. It is does not change the fact that Clinton sucked at foreign affairs.
"The article is about Clinton and how "great" he was in foreign affairs."
Not lost on me nance. Bush has been a nightmare in the same regard.
Sorry you can't get over Monica. Clinton was surely the only president to every do such a horrible thing since Nixon and Bush I.
Well, GHWB had Jennifer Fitzgerald.
Not that you ever heard about it in the SCLM (so-called liberal media), of course.
Is there anybody else but Clinton? More Clinton Scandels 101
"If a president of the
United States ever lied
to the American people,
he should resign."
- Bill Clinton, 1974.
"The road to tyranny,
we must never forget,
begins with the
destruction of the truth."
- Bill Clinton, 1995.
"The American people
are tired of liars and
people who pretend to be
something they're not."
- Hillary R. Clinton, 1992.
Americans Get What They Deserve
Clinton's Dangerous War Games
Tainted Blood Articles
Clinton's Trail of Blood...
Clinton pal tied to blood scandal
Bloodgate thicker than Watergate
Klinton's Killings?
Monica feared for her life!
Death of a White House Intern
New alarm over growing list of dead close to president
A partial list of those who have died around president
About that Clinton body count...
Drug Use In The White House
Federal land grab called 'political'
Two Mysterious Deaths
The Death Of Vince Foster
News On The Death Of Vince Foster
Lawmaker seeks FBI probe of Huang
The Ignored Truth About Bill Clinton
More Ignored Truth About Bill Clinton
Clinton, Chinese Espionage & Ron Brown's Murder
Ron Brown Assassination Information Clearinghouse
The Mysterious Crash of Ron Brown's Plane in Bosnia
OTHER POINTS OF INTEREST
FBI Overlooked Evidence Of China Influence-Buying
Is the Clinton Exchange of Foreign Policy for
Chinese Campaign Contributions of No Interest to Americans?!
Is the Acceptable Standard of Behavior
Lower for the President than For Congressmen ?
Red China and the Selling Out of America
McDougal Says Check to Clinton was A Loan
Larry Nichols on Tornado Driven Check to Clinton
Tornado Blows In Whitewater Check to Clinton
President 'had role in hush fund cover-up'
Riddle of Chinese Reporter's Suicide
Chinese Cash 'Sent to Clinton's Old Friend'
China's California Beachhead Becomes Security Concern
Washington Times Report Says "China's gifts part of espionage"
Did Clinton Prostitute the American Presidency?
Is The Clinton Administration Guilty Of Treason?
"All Roads Lead to China", by Kenneth R. Timmerman
"Clinton's Chinese Takeaway" - by Ambrose Evans
"Everyone Has Chinese Arms Merchants to Lunch -- Don't You?"
"What The Chinese Got for their DNC Campaign Donations"
"Clinton Policy - Disarming America and Arming China"
Picture points finger at White House
1998 The Clinton Administration Page:
Bill Clinton,
Bill Clinton will probably be remembered as the most corrupt president in American history. Aside from being the ONLY popular elected president ever impeached, Bill Clinton's legacy extends to little more than widespread rococco corruption.
The Scandals,
Whitewater
Cattle-gate
Nanny-gate
Helicopter-gate
Travel-gate
Gennifer Flowers-gate
File-gate
Vince Foster-gate
I wonder where those Whitewater billing records came from-gate
Paula Jones-gate
Federal Building campaign phone call-gate
Lincoln bedroom-gate
White House coffee-gate
Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealers-gate
Buddhist Temple-gate
Web Hubbell hush moneygate
Lippogate
Chinese commie-gate
Let's blame Kenneth Starr-gate
Zipper-gate,intern-gate - the Lewinsky affair itself
Perjury and jobs for Lewinsky-gate - the aftermath
Willey-gate
Web Hubbell prison phone call-gate
Selling Military Technology to the Chinese-gate
Coverup for our Russian Comrades as Well-gate
Wag-the-Dog-gate
Jaunita Broaddrick gate
PBS-gate
Email-gate
Vandal-gate
Looter-gate
Pardon-gate
Uh, "tommy", why not list all the INDICTMENTS due to all those scandAls?
BTW, C&Ping from (e.g.) NewsMax is not considered "evidentiary" per any definition of the word.
Then you can list all the CONVICTIONS.
Can't wait to read this.
Sorry for the multiple postings but something else just came to mind ....
"tommy" .... Do you remember the first (of what were to ultimately be many) misstep of the Bush Administration? No? Well, see if THE US's BEST SPY PLANE HANDED OVER TO THE CHINESE jogs your memory at all.
And then you can explain to ALL of us in great detail how a lie about a blow job is so much worse than handing over our TOP SPY PLANE to the Chinese.
Tommy the Clinton hater, if you use real facts, it has even more effect. Check it out...
"I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow."
- Richard Nixon, 1974
See, Clinton just lied about sex, whereas Nixon was lying about actual criminal acts. See the difference? Probably not.
By the way, that whole Whitewater stuff? That was just an excuse used by the republicans to investigate the man to death. $40 million in taxpayer bucks and all they did was make the man lie about sex. Woo hoo! Ken Starr! Woo hoo! Master of the $40 million dollar lie! Woo hoo!
Hey Tommy, did you read that story about how hate radio works? You know they can lie all they want, right? You know they keep you all riled up just so you'll keep listening, right? You know they do that all the time because it sells commercials, right? And you realize that it all adds up to them spoon feeding you a bunch of hooey in order to make a living, right?
Okay, just so you know.
I seriously doubt that Clinton was the ONLY president having an illecit sexual encounter - he was just dumb enough to get caught. I could give a rats ass less what his sexual escapades consist of -
Clinton commited a felony of which he lost his license to pratice law.
50 years from now...the main thing that Clinton will be remembered for in US History books is that he was the 2nd President to be impeached.
50 years from now Clinton will be remembered as the last President to balance the budget.
That might be true since Obama will be considered the 1st President to run trillion dollar deficits in every year of his Presidency.
Hopefully, another president will be balance the budget in the next 50 years
Clinton will always be remembered as the 2nd Impeached President in US History books.
Why so much hate for Clinton nance? By and large, the man was one of the best in my lifetime for sure.
Bring your head out into the sunshine. For those that can't remember more than Monica, Bill Clinton was a true moderate Democrat; proven by his record. He is great in foreign affairs and has a real relationship with many nation heads because he has displayed a trustworthy and wise persona. He was good for the country. If Sen. Clinton accepts the Secretary of State position, Former President Clinton knows his behavior in other countries would require scrutiny.
Remember Clinton put his wife in charge of "Health Care" Do I need to say MORE. John look at the facts if he lied about sex not just to his wife but to the AMERICAN PUBLIC what else did he lie about????????? I dont think its hate its fact get your head out of the sand maybe you should move to a to a town that has dirt .
John maybe he budget was not as balanced as we were told . REMEMBER he never had sex with that woman.
So I'll ask you, NZBOB .... was a lie about a blow job so much worse than lying to the world to get us into a war that is now costing WE THE TAXPAYERS TRILLIONS of dollars?
At what point do you take ANY issue with the CURRENT administration? WHAT POINT???
"Do I need to say MORE."
Yes you do. You need to EXPLAIN that in DETAIL.
"John look at the facts...."
I have. I also watched Ken Starr spend millions to make sure he lied. Don't care in the slightest. Never did. Never will. To me it means absolutely nothing about him except the he has one hell of a creative stream running through him. A pattern is a pattern big Bob. Wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?
Bush? Cocaine? Whiskey? C student? Cheerleader? You can have that legacy. I'll take non-inhaling Rhode Scholar and the blue dress any day. Giggity!
Couldn't have said it better, johne. Bravo!
You guys might want to look up what "Carbon credits" are. This is what we signed up for as Americans.
Clinton also put the finishing touches on creating NAFTA. How's that working out?
Clinton did some good things: Balance budget with the help a Republican Congress, reduced capital gain taxes, NAFTA and kicking people off welfare
Clinton sucked at foregin policy.
Clinton committed a felony.
"So I'll ask you, NZBOB .... was a lie about a blow job so much worse than lying to the world to get us into a war that is now costing WE THE TAXPAYERS TRILLIONS of dollars?"
Ok Pat you win. Shrub was is a treasonist war criminal who should be frogmarched out of the oval office put on a plane to the Hague and after the show trials hung for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!!! Surely the enlighten peoples of Europe will understand that they need to make an exception to their civilized stance against capital punishment and SHOW THE WORLD WHAT TYRANTS LIKE SHRUB DESERVE!!!!1111!!!! BUSH LIED = MILLIONS DIED! ok fine. Is that better?
Except that he was using the same intelligence as BJ Clinton and the rest of the world wide intelligence community. I guess it wasn't a lie when Slick Willy stated it, but became a lie because Bush used it to enforce the 17 UNSC resolutions and our very own laws. See the opening text of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which Willy signed into law. I guess CLINTON LIED = MILLIONS DIED! eh?
IF only, if only we went for an even 20 UNSC resolutions surely the Butcher of Baghdad would have capitulated!
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf
The Congress makes the following findings:
...
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defect that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended ... and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
...
(9) ... March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, ...
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105--235, ... urged the President ''to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''.
...
To sum up, we *did* find WMDs and got rid of them in Iraq. We found and got rid of Saddam, his two sons, Chemical Ali, and others too numerous to list.
Iraq turned into a focal point in the war on terror. We are fighting there and in Afghanistan so we don't fight elsewhere. (Where we are not expecting to.) Instead of having numerous cruise ships hijacked, embassies bombed, and assorted terror attacks in the 80s and 90s, outside of the theater of war the attacks we have we are able to treat in the manner you would suggest, as police actions. Since 2001 we have had the DC snipers, some idiot suffering sudden jihad syndrome at UNC, and some other idiot attacking the El Al ticket counter at LAX.
But Pat you and your ilk are right, we are much less safe now than we were in the 80s and 90s. *eye roll* Let's trade our limited attacks of the 00s for the many attacks of the 80s and 90s.
I'm sure there are some other American citizens capable of being a good ambassador, and one of them should be chosen. A disciplined lawyer who perjured himself and convinced the Democrats to defend his perjury is not a good choice.
Cannon, don't know where you've been but all of those "points" have been addressed in previous threads over the past few weeks (though I would really like to see a link or reference posted by you please).
To state emphatically that Clinton & Bush were working from "the same intelligence" is disingenuous at best. Try to remember history as it happened and not as the right wing has re-written it.
Clinton wasn't my favorite, but you people really need to get off his mighty heat-seeking moisture missile. It's been more than eight years.
And last time, the name is Patricia. I would have thought it was quite clear on the screen.
Can't believe I missed this one LMAO ...
"... we *did* find WMDs and got rid of them in Iraq"
Uh huh. So did the "liberal media" cover it all up and decide not to report it? Was this a press conference Gee Dubya decided wasn't worth it? Did Cheney not think it important enough to come out of his hidey hole into the public eye to proclaim the administration's vindication from the hilltops?
And why oh why did the rationale/reasons for the war then change three or four more times?
How much does it hurt to twist and spin so desperately as your ILK does on a daily basis in order to buy into the myth of your belief system?
Cannon, I have this friend who is incredibly intelligent. Amazingly so. Genius level. But he is also paranoid. Very. So he's always onto conspiracy theories about everything from aspartame to Microsoft. To listen to him is compelling. There is simply no way NOT to believe him when he tells you not to drink Diet Coke.
But his evidence is preferential. It is based on his theory (made in advance) that if it was created by a big company, it's bad for you. That is what you exhibit by posting all that Clinton bologna. As Patricia has made so clear, it's utterly dismissible because it's utterly spun to suit what you've already decided. It's prejudiced.
You should read up on hate radio and TV. There is some good stuff out there now about why it is so effective. Rush smokes some expensive Cubans thanks to shills like you. The really funny part is, he actually doesn't care what you believe as long as you're p.o.ed, because then you'll tune in tomorrow!
"Cannon, don't know where you've been but all of those "points" have been addressed in previous threads over the past few weeks (though I would really like to see a link or reference posted by you please).
...
And last time, the name is Patricia. I would have thought it was quite clear on the screen."
Patricia (Actually your name isn't Patricia, since you apparently have a stick grafted to your spine, your screen name is quite clearly PatriciaLV. There is that sufficient?) (BTW PatticiaLV, if you are being a stickler my handle is Cannon_Asesrb if you are demanding that your full handle be used, you should use mine.)
I did post the link "news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf"
Again,
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf
There that is the third time since you apparently missed it before. Do you need it again? Since you had trouble finding it here are the directions:
-Select (e.g. Click on the "n" in "news" and while you are still depressing the mouse button drag the cursor all the way to the "f" in the ".pdf"). -Now that you have web url highlighted depress both the "crtl" and "c" keys at the same time. (That is called copy.)
-Now go to the space in your browser that contains the URL for this story (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov...) delete the URL to this story and while your cursor is still up there depress the "ctrl" and "v" keys at the same time. (that is called paste.)
-Finally depress the enter key once. Ooooh be careful it will try to open a .pdf file. That is ok, allow your computer to do so.
Also PatriciaLV (there is that better pattisweetie?), yes we found WMDs. Saddam and his sons. Found, captured, and hung. (Well Saddam's children were shot, but that is a minor quibble.)
"You should read up on hate radio and TV. There is some good stuff out there now about why it is so effective. Rush smokes some expensive Cubans thanks to shills like you. The really funny part is, he actually doesn't care what you believe as long as you're p.o.ed, because then you'll tune in tomorrow!"
And John, hmmm your right hate radio is bad. Certainly not quite as bad as the NYT who never met a leak they didn't like; ErrAmerica with Randy Rhodes and Al Franken; CNN who has a tendency to broadcast false leaks set to damage the US (tailwind anyone?) or the CNN who stated that we knew what was going on in Iraq, but didn't broadcast anything because they felt it was better for the world if they kept our Baghdad office; ditto CBS "fake but true" story of Bush's TANG service, eh john?
Alas john you are correct all the world's problems can be laid at the feet of Rush, Sean, and Michael Savage. That troika is the anti christs and the world would be much better if they were tried, convicted of hatemongering, and had their tongues and hand removed so they couldn't speak or type their lies, right?
So very many words to say absolutely nothing.
No I didn't see the link (probably because it isn't hyperlinked; or didn't you notice) else I'd have clicked on it. It's kind of a habit of mine.
I read your link. Can you please point me to the exact section where "military invasion" is authorized? I see a lot of authorization of ASSISTANCE, but I can't seem to find that silly little "military invasion" thingy.
Oh and as to the vote under the Bush administration, please take note that Bush was never expressly given that declaration of war thingy that is normally required. In fact, "war" was to be used AS A LAST RESORT.
Of course, Junior used it as his ONLY resort because that had been requested of his handlers (read: PNAC) since the Clinton administration.
Interesting how none of that seems to bother you in the least. But OHMYUNDERGOD .... a blow job! The horror. Remind me how many people died because of either the blow job or the resultant lie. I forget.
BTW, where exactly were those WMD? And can you point me to the multitudes of administration press conferences and White House press releases that proclaimed the vindication of the administration upon such discovery? I must have missed all of them. Imagine that.
And the fact that you even attempt to compare the AM spectrum of hate radio with ONE (count it - ONE) liberal program is laughable at best. To consider ANY of your MSM references as liberal is a scream. But I understand that you need to hold dear to these beliefs else the very foundation upon which your slant is based would crumble.
Lastly, my name actually IS Patricia. And I actually LIVE in LV. I have no need to hide behind some made-up screen name.
Oops .... I nearly forgot this little gem .... "... CBS "fake but true" story of Bush's TANG service ..."
Yes, the story was true, though the memo (not the source of the memo; just the actual memo) was fabricated. Funny how not one person or entity ever refuted, corrected or clarified by any means with any verifiable proof and/or evidence ***the information contained in the memo***. Not. One. Person. Not Bush. Not Rove. Not Cheney. Not Bush Sr. Not the military. Not even the spectrum of right-wing/hate media. NO ONE. Ever. To this day.
As far as the link goes most news paper sites don't allow html. I didn't think they would here. So yes, I did know I didn't post an html link. If you would like <a href="news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf">Link to Iraq liberation act of 1998</a>
(Hmmm looking at preview I am seeing that I can't add links to the posts.)
"BTW, where exactly were those WMD? And can you point me to the multitudes of administration press conferences and White House press releases that proclaimed the vindication of the administration upon such discovery? I must have missed all of them. Imagine that."
Patricia I will go slowly here:
Let's.. see,.. Saddam.. was.. found.. in.. a.. sewer,.. his.. two.. sons.. were.. killed.. in.. battle... I.. don't.. recall.. off.. the.. top.. of.. my.. head.. where.. Chemical.. Ali.. was.. taken... (There patti is that slow enough for you?)
As far as OMFGABLOWJOB!!! Yes, right after that Willy decided that cruise missiles needed shot off willy nilly in an attempt to deflect the investigation. Because under a democrat administration all criticism stops at the water's edge and all internal discussion should stop. While under a republican administration we must do nothing but criticize at home and overseas. (Also just curious, how many people died when one of those cruise missiles slammed into the Belgrade Chinese embassy? Or how many people died when His Slickness bombed an aspirin factory during that time?)
As far as "one" liberal program. ??? Hmmm CBS "fake but accurate" (one), CNN lying about tailwind (two), CNN not broadcasting what they knew about Iraq prior 2003 because they knew it would inflame the public toward supporting the war (three), ErrAmerica (four), NPR (five), NYT (six). Patricia to think that those *aren't* liberal means you are living in a bubble. Let me guess you don't *know* anyone who voted for McCain (outside of the posters here) much like earlier mainstream reporters couldn't understand how Nixon won because they didn't know anyone who voted for him. Pattidear, if that is your real name, it is you who are living in a bubble.
Tell you what PatriciaLV, since you are so offended by Patti or Patty, I will start using your name once you start using mine. (Actually it really doesn't matter to me, but you are the one with the issues.) Or are you just another typical offended liberal who whines that something is unfair because other people won't do X while it is perfectly fine for you to not do X. Such as:
-Calling people by their preferred handle,
- Giving to charity (taxes are more effective dontch'a know),
- or even paying your fair share of taxes. (If Gates, Buffet, Slick Willy, or Patrick Kennedy, truly do believe that the rich aren't paying their fair share, they really should show us by example and make immediate payments to the IRS. The IRS does take Visa, Master Card, Discover, AMEX, wire transfer, money orders, cashier's checks, and personnel checks.)
LOL ... you still didn't answer as to where the WMD were found and you never pointed me to any of the what-must-have-been multitudinous press conferences by members of the administration and press releases by the White House proclaiming vindication on that primary reason for invading Iraq. Something about "mushroom clouds over NYC" is resonating .....
The rest is simply more of your long-winded nonsense, none of which is backed up by any actual evidence - just more right-wing talking points and twisted "facts".
Please respond to the direct question now posed to you for the THIRD TIME.
Here are excellent reasons for voting for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution.
I hope we have somebody like the author of this speech in the White House to help give quidance and wisdom to Obama.
"The point about whether or not there needs to be an imminent threat to justify the President taking action is what is at stake. I am of the school that suggests the President need not, if the underlying amendment passes, have to show there is an imminent threat. He is enforcing a peace agreement in effect. He is enforcing, not preempting. And he is not responding to imminent threat."
"What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority--not under a doctrine of preemption. This will not be a preemptive strike, if we go with the rest of the world. It will be an enforcement strike."
"The reason I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from Connecticut began, and that is the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That is because we would be enforcing Security Council resolutions. That is authority we are about to delegate to the President."
"The bottom line was, the Senator from Arizona and I felt strongly we had to go. We had to move. Were the Serbs an imminent threat to the United States of America? No. Was it a threat to our security interests? Yes. The stabilization of southeastern Europe. And so I think part of the thing that confuses people here--anyone listening to the debate, myself included, as part of the debate--is this notion of the place from which you began."
"Please respond to the direct question now posed to you for the THIRD TIME."
For the thrid time. Saddam, his sons, Chemical Ali, et al WERE THE WMDs. They were found, jailed, tried, and executed. WMDs found and destroyed .
Ah, I see. So that's the spin? Oh my.
Take a break, Cannon. You need one. LOL.
Sorry, but we were not sold on the "WMD" argument... unless we were legitimately worried that Saddam would snug himself into a suitcase and detonate his fissile core (pancreas maybe?) and nuke NY. Sorry people aren't WMDs unless they are vectors for ebola or something. Try again bub. We were told there were chemical, biological (read anthrax or other bacterium (literally)), or nuclear.
"Rush, Sean, and Michael Savage"
Who are all entertainers and not bound by a code of ethics. Fox "News" has already defended it's right to lie in court. They make a living on hate, pure and simple. There is an entire methodology to it.
You can compare it to news outlets if you like, but to me it's absurd to think that's the offset. It's a phenomenon of hate filled lies and propaganda designed for people to make a living, and has very little to do with actual news except the news it creates itself.
"For the thrid time. Saddam, his sons, Chemical Ali, et al WERE THE WMDs. They were found, jailed, tried, and executed. WMDs found and destroyed ."
That's some kinda revisionist history.
I guess that's all you've got in defense of the indefensible.
Here are excellent reasons for voting for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution.
I hope we have somebody like the author of this speech in the White House to help give quidance and wisdom to Obama.
"The point about whether or not there needs to be an imminent threat to justify the President taking action is what is at stake. I am of the school that suggests the President need not, if the underlying amendment passes, have to show there is an imminent threat. He is enforcing a peace agreement in effect. He is enforcing, not preempting. And he is not responding to imminent threat."
"What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority--not under a doctrine of preemption. This will not be a preemptive strike, if we go with the rest of the world. It will be an enforcement strike."
"The reason I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from Connecticut began, and that is the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That is because we would be enforcing Security Council resolutions. That is authority we are about to delegate to the President."
"The bottom line was, the Senator from Arizona and I felt strongly we had to go. We had to move. Were the Serbs an imminent threat to the United States of America? No. Was it a threat to our security interests? Yes. The stabilization of southeastern Europe. And so I think part of the thing that confuses people here--anyone listening to the debate, myself included, as part of the debate--is this notion of the place from which you began. "
Let's accept that four "people" constitute WMD. (This is hard to do; I realize that. Especially with a straight face. But I'll give it a shot.)
OK.
So do you think it was the most efficient use of our military to go after four people? Or do you think it just might have been better to send spooks? Then maybe follow up with some special forces or what-have you. I mean, really, how much money, time, lives, resources, etc. could we have saved?
OMG I can't even type this with a straight face.
Or do you think the whole premise of the war was to get the oil? Hmm?
"For the thrid time. Saddam, his sons, Chemical Ali, et al WERE THE WMDs. They were found, jailed, tried, and executed. WMDs found and destroyed ."
Wow! That is some smelly bologna right there. The people were the WMDs? Doesn't that make Bush a WMD, since he has his finger on the trigger?
This is some really dumb stuff Cannon. Even for you.
Jim we read it the first time you posted it. Include an attribution the next time you post it, please.
"The fundamentals of the American economy are strong."
No, no wait! I meant the American workers! Yeah, yeah, the American workers! They are the "fundamentals" of the economy! They are strong! How dare you criticize American workers!
"Saddam and his sons were the WMD!"
Same preposterous argument, same failed CYA.
These are excellent.....excellent points on why the 2002 Iraq War resolution was properly approved by the Congress with strong Democratic support.
Very wise man said these words.........I only hope Obama will get somebody like him in the White House.
"The point about whether or not there needs to be an imminent threat to justify the President taking action is what is at stake. I am of the school that suggests the President need not, if the underlying amendment passes, have to show there is an imminent threat. He is enforcing a peace agreement in effect. He is enforcing, not preempting. And he is not responding to imminent threat."
"What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority--not under a doctrine of preemption. This will not be a preemptive strike, if we go with the rest of the world. It will be an enforcement strike."
"The reason I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from Connecticut began, and that is the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That is because we would be enforcing Security Council resolutions. That is authority we are about to delegate to the President. "
"The bottom line was, the Senator from Arizona and I felt strongly we had to go. We had to move. Were the Serbs an imminent threat to the United States of America? No. Was it a threat to our security interests? Yes. The stabilization of southeastern Europe. And so I think part of the thing that confuses people here--anyone listening to the debate, myself included, as part of the debate--is this notion of the place from which you began. "
Hey spammo, third strike you are out. Knock it off.
Those are great points on why the 2002 Iraq War resolution should have been passed.
It was a great person who said it.
Obama should try and get that person into the White House to help deal with foreign policies issues.
Are they not great reasons to legally invade Iraq?
First of all my PatricaLV's vapors moment. "UNTIL YOU ADDRESS ME PROPERLY PATRICIALV ALL CONVERSATION IS OVER!!!" Hmmm did I get that correct?
Actually PatriciaLV, ok fine. Shrub was a coke snorting (like His Oneness) draft dodging (not quite like willy who loathed the military and never served a day in his life) war criminal like Johnson and should be tried as a war criminal. You are willing to accept a "fake but accurate" memo because "everyone says it's correct", but when several of the world's intelligence agencies, President Clinton, and the UNSC all thought Saddam had WMDs you call it a lie.
We tried it with spooks. Many of the world's intel agencies believed he had WMDs. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The Russians, French, and Germans also thought that he had WMDs. He used WMDs in the past, he was looking for them after kicking out UN inspectors, and even with our troops on the door he refused to let inspectors back in.
Just a recap of the relevant UNSC resolutions: (all lies I guess, eh?) http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/1490... (PatricaLV, look it is a URL. A link, take a look.)
UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
All 17 of those are a bigger lie than getting a blow job in the WH, right?
But your right PatriciaLV all it would have taken is just one more UNSC resolution, just another couple of years (beyond the 12 from 1991 to 2003) for our spooks to work, and Saddam would have willing allowed the inspectors back in and would have joined the community of nations like Qadhafi (may his spellings be many). One small quibble with that, Qadaffi (may his spellings be many) didn't actually renounce his WMD program until after we went into another mid-east country for some nation building.
I guess that nation building is only a good thing when democrats do it, there is zero US national interest, and we have to intervene in our allies' backyard.
And PatricaLV, here is a freebie since it is apparently too difficult for you to copy and paste part of jfnance's quote into dogpile (or google or yahoo or ask jeeves or any other search engine) it is from the following website:
(In case you miss it PatriciaLV THIS IS A URL site.. A link... (since the sun website is hit or miss on actually creating links) linky linky linky...) right here is a link --->
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/...
Thank you, Oh Sarcastic One, but whether or not resolutions were broken wasn't the issue on this thread. Lame attempt at deflection.
Again, you stated outright that FOUR PEOPLE were the WMD we were warned about by the admnistration. "Mushroom cloud over NYC" and all that tongue-wagging that served as the rah-rah-run-up to the invasion.
Now you are apparently trying to tell us that it was all the broken/ignored UNSC resolutions that were the real reason for the invasion.
Funny, though; when Powell went before the UN to proudly present his cartoon slideshow, those broken resolutions weren't really used as a justification.
(Aside: Curious here; is it the broken/ignored resolutions that bother you? How many has Israel broken/ignored? Like I said, just curious.)
So next up will you be telling us about the al Qaida/Hussein connection? Or how they tried to kill Dubya's daddy? Or will it be "bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq"?
Oh and one last thing; if you place the http etc. BEFORE the web site address it will hotlink when you post, but NOT when you preview.
I guess we all are in argument that the below are excellent reasons for the voting for the Iraq War Resolutions.
"The point about whether or not there needs to be an imminent threat to justify the President taking action is what is at stake. I am of the school that suggests the President need not, if the underlying amendment passes, have to show there is an imminent threat. He is enforcing a peace agreement in effect. He is enforcing, not preempting. And he is not responding to imminent threat."
"What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority--not under a doctrine of preemption. This will not be a preemptive strike, if we go with the rest of the world. It will be an enforcement strike."
"The reason I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from Connecticut began, and that is the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That is because we would be enforcing Security Council resolutions. That is authority we are about to delegate to the President. "
"The bottom line was, the Senator from Arizona and I felt strongly we had to go. We had to move. Were the Serbs an imminent threat to the United States of America? No. Was it a threat to our security interests? Yes. The stabilization of southeastern Europe. And so I think part of the thing that confuses people here--anyone listening to the debate, myself included, as part of the debate--is this notion of the place from which you began. "
Yes, Jim, we are all in ARGUMENT over that. Freudian slip?
Nothing in what you posted expressly declares war. And last I looked that WAS kind of a law in this country. The 2002 authorization was to use war as a LAST RESORT. And as we all know, Bush used it as the ONLY RESORT.
In addition, no one has responded to the WMD question. All you've done is parrott/repeat/ditto the same tired old talking points over and over and over.
As I've told you repeatedly, if you insist on posting half- and twisted truths and outright lies, I'll keep calling you on them.
"Now you are apparently trying to tell us that it was all the broken/ignored UNSC resolutions that were the real reason for the invasion."
But pattibaby if we couldn't send inspectors in how could we verify that he didn't have WMDs. It turns out he didn't.
Hmmm if the ASPCA, NSPCA, Fred the Baker, the mailman, and the meter reader all tell the police that you keep kicking dogs in your laundry room. You refuse the let the police in even after they came to your house 17 times to investigate animal cruelty, but they know that 2 years ago you kicked your neighbors dog at her house. Finally the police pull a Waco and storm your house after giving you one final warning only to determine that you are currently kicking a stuffed dog, the rest of the world is lying, right? No the rest of the world did what they did using the information they had at the time. Oh and Pattibaby, quit kicking the dog.
"Nothing in what you posted expressly declares war. And last I looked that WAS kind of a law in this country. The 2002 authorization was to use war as a LAST RESORT. And as we all know, Bush used it as the ONLY RESORT"
You are right PatriciaLV. The 17 prior UNSC, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and the 2002 authorization of war was not even resorts. Bush should have spent the next 5 years saying "pretty please... with sugar on top Saddam? Darn he once again didn't allow weapon inspectors in. Hmmm all the world's intelligence agencies say he has WMDs, but heck the lovable lug is probably just bluffing." What should have been "THE LAST RESORT?"
BTW here are some the "lies" of the world community: (wow can't fit em all in those 3000 characters.)
* States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations (DOH OH NO COULD THIS BE THE LAST, LAST RESORT?!?!)
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq." (OH NOES ANOTHER LAST RESORT)
* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
* Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement ... all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
"Oh and one last thing; if you place the http etc. BEFORE the web site address it will hotlink when you post, but NOT when you preview."
Thank you PatriciaLV.
A note to the sun webmasters, ummm what kind of messed up preview system do you have when it doesn't, oh I don't know, allow you to fully preview what you are typing?
All Saddam had to do to be in compliance with the UN resolutions and the cease-fire agreement was to show how and when he destroyed the WMD's.
His own generals did not know the WMD's were destroyed. When the US and British and other allies were advancing in Iraq, Saddam's generals were demanding Saddam to release the WMD's.
Saddam choosed to deceive the world into thinking that he had WMD's. Clinton said after he left office that he believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's on his last day in office. Almost all the world's intelligence services said that Saddam still had WMD's.
He choose to deceive the world because he probably thought it would deter a US attack or a Iranian attack.
He made a bad decision.
A very wise man push to give Bush the congressional authority to attack Iraq to enforce Security Council resolutions and the cease fire agreement. The wise man said that it is not a preemptive strike but an enforcement strike.
Oh Nasty One ..... Iraq DID let the inspectors back in but it was Shrub who kicked them out so we could invade. DOH is right.
And you're back to the actual WMD versus the people WMD. Where were they? You too, Jim; WHERE WERE THEY???
How much do you get paid for this? Is it lucrative? Did you have to sell your soul?
Last one ..... as I just told Jim on another thread, I'm tired of wasting my time with paid shills. And YOU, Oh Nasty One, are a paid shill.
Take care and happy whatever-you-celebrate.
"Oh Nasty One ..... Iraq DID let the inspectors back in but it was Shrub who kicked them out so we could invade. DOH is right."
When? Links Patti links... When between the last UNSC resolution of 2002 and the enforcement of 17 UNSC resolutions starting March of 2003 where inspectors allowed back in.
One more thing PatriciaLV, for someone as whiny about using proper handles, you sure do seem to have a "pot calling the kettle black" issue.
Oh and no patti, I stopped getting paid after the oil for palaces program got scrapped as a result of the 2003 enforcement action. That is the reason that I am upset much like the Russians and French I could no longer keep myself in milk and cookies.